IRC 78 Part-2-2020

IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Code of Practice
for
Limit State Design of Foundations
Published by:
INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

Kama Koti Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 022
december, 2020
Price : ` 800/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
irC:78 (Part-2)-2020
“Code of Practice for Limit State design of foundations”
author’s name
Indian Roads Congress
Published by
Publisher’s address
Kama Koti Marg, Sector-6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110 022
Printer’s details
Prnt Source Glazers Pvt. Ltd.
edition details
First Published, December, 2020
iSbn: 9788195275502
(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced,

translated or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
permission of the Indian Roads Congress)
600 Copies
CONTENTS
S. No. Description Page No.
Personnel of Bridges Specification and Standards Committee i-ii
Introduction 1
1. Symbols 2
2. Design Philosophy and Verifications under Ultimate and Serviceability 3
Limit States
2.1 Design philosophy 3
2.2 Combinations of loads and forces for limit state design of open foundation 4
3. Open Foundation 6
3.1 Check for loss of equilibrium 6
3.2 Verification for bearing resistance 7
3.3 Verification of uplift limit state 9
3.4 Verification of serviceability limit state 10
3.5 Special vehicle loading 11
3.6 Other provisions 12
4. Pile Foundation 12
4.1 General 12
4.2 Load and load combinations 12
4.3 Set value of partial factor for geo-technical materials to be used for 12
computation of geo technical action and ground resistance
4.4 Ultimate limit state verifications 13
4.5 Calculation of pile capacity of piles resting on soil 14
4.6 Group action of piles 18
4.7 Calculation of pile capacity for piles resisting on rock and intermediate 19
geo-materials
4.8 Verification of tensile resistance of pile foundation 21
4.9 Settlement and serviceability limit state 23
4.10 Routine load test 23
4.11 Piles subjected to lateral load 23
4.12 Structural analysis of pile 24
4.13 Structural design of pile 25
5. Well Foundations 25
5.1 Limit state of verification of side earth resistance and bearing resistance 25
5.2 Load and load combinations 26
5.3 Partial factor for geo-technical material for computation of resistances 26
5.4 Resistance factors for side and base resistance and limitation of side 26
resistance 26
5.5 Summary of resistance factors for base resistance 27
5.6 Verification of base resistance and base contact area 27
5.7 Verification of serviceability limit state 27
5.8 Structural design of foundation 28
Appendix-1 Explanatory Note 29
1. Limit State Design Approach and Design of Open Foundation 29
1.1 Introduction 29
1.2 Adoption of partial factor on geo-technical material for equilibrium check 29
1.3 Check for overturning and sliding 29
1.4 Explanation to the pressure diagram 30
1.5 Discussion on base contact area 31
1.6 Fixation of minimum allowable base contact area 31
1.7 Allowable bearing pressure 35
1.8 Serviceability limit state check 36
1.9 Final recommendation 36
1.10 Factors for SV loading 36
2. Design of Pile Foundation 37
2.1 Material factor adopted for checking equilibrium 37
2.2 Partial factor on material for checking geo-technical capacity and for 37
computing geo technical action
2.3 Ground resistance factor 37
2.4 Model factor 38
2.5 Methods of designing piles 38
2.6 Calculations of pile capacity resting on soil, rock and intermediate geo 40
materials
2.7 Tensile resistance of pile foundation 41
2.8 Routine load test 42
2.9 Piles subjected to lateral loads 42
2.10 Factors for S.V. loading 42
3. Design of Well Foundation 44
3.1 Design approach for well foundation 44
3.2 Limit state verification of side and base resistance 44
3.3 Load combinations, partial factor on, material set value and base 44
resistance
3.4 Partial factor for geo-technical material 44
3.5 Partial factor on ground resistance for foundation resting on soil 45
3.6 Summary of resistance factors 46
3.7 Verification of base resistance and base contact area for wells 46
resisting soil
3.8 Verification of base resistance and base contact foundations resting 46
on rock
3.9 Serviceability limit state verification 46
3.10 Structural design of foundation 46
3.11 Factors for SV loading 47
Appendix-2 Introduction for the Worked Out Examples 48

1 Example on Open Foundation by Working Stress Method as per present 50
IRC:78 and by Limit State Method
2 Example on Pile Foundation by Limit State Method and by Working 92
Stress Method as per present IRC:78
3 Example on Pier Well Foundation by Working Stress Method as per 107
IRC:78 and Limit State Method
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
PERSONNEL OF THE BRIDGES SPECIFICATIONS
AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(as on 6th December, 2019)
1. Pandey, I.K. Director General (Road Development) & Special Secretary to Govt. of
(Convenor) India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
2. Balakrishna, Y Additional Director General, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
(Co-convenor) New Delhi
3. Kumar, Sanjeev Chief Engineer (S & R) , Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
(Member-Secretary) Transport Bhavan, New Delhi
Members
4. Bagish, Dr. B.P. Chief Engineer (Retd.), Road Construction Department, Bihar
5. Banerjee, A.K. Member (Technical) (Retd.), National Highway Authority of India
6. Basa, Ashok Managing Director, CEM Consultant (P) Ltd.
7. Bhide, D.A. Vice President (Design), MRMPL
8. Bhowmick, Alok Managing Director, B&S Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd., UP
9. Chakrapani, R.V. Managing Director, Aarvee Associate, Hyderabad
10. Director General, BRO (Anil Kumar, Chief Engineer) Border Road Organization
11. Gairola, Col. Pradeep GM (Project), BRIDCUL, Dehradun
12. Garg, Sanjay Chief Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
13. Ghoshal, A. Principal Advisor, STUP Consultants (P) Ltd. Kolkata
14. Gupta, Dr. Supratic Assistant Professor, IIT Delhi
15. Heggade, V.N. CEO, STUP Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
16. HOD Bridge Division, CRRI (G.K. Sahu), CSIR-CRRI, New Delhi
17. Jaigopal, R.K. MD, Struct Geotech Research Laboratories (P) Ltd. Bengaluru
18 Jatkar, Mohan Advisor, Gammon India Ltd.
19. Kataria, Ranjan Executive Director (Technical), Delhi Metro
20. Koshi, Ninan DG(RD)&AS (Retd.), Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi
21. Maheshwari, Dr. B.K. Professor, IIT Roorkee
22. Managing Director, RSRDC (M.G. Maheshwari, MD) RSRDC, Jaipur
23. Managing Director, UPSBC (Ranjan Mittal, MD) UPSBC, Lucknow
24. Manisekar, Dr. R. Sr. Scientist, CSIR-SERC, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
25. Mishra, Dr. Sudhir Professor , IIT Kanpur
26. Nirmal, S.K. Secretary General, IRC
27. Patankar, V.L Addl. Director General (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi
28. Prasad, Mathura Superintending Engineer, PWD Delhi
i
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
29. Puri, S.K. DG(RD)&SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
30. Rao, P. Ravinder Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) State Roads, CRN, PPP & RDC, Telangana
31. Sharan, G. DG(RD)&SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New
Delhi
32 Sharma, R.S. Managing Director, M/s Sugam Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
33. Sinha, B.K. Chief Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
34. Sinha, N.K. DG(RD)&SS (Retd.), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New
Delhi
35. Subbhiya, Ravindra Chief Design Engineer, L&T, Chennai
36. Tandon, Prof. Mahesh Managing Director, Tandon Consultants (P) Ltd., New Delhi
37. Tawade, D.O. Member (Technical), National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), New
Delhi
38. The Engineer-in-Chief, MES Military Engineer Service (MES), New Delhi
(Sharma AVSM, Lt. Gen.
Suresh)
39. Viswanathan, T Consultant, Delhi
Corresponding Members
1 Manjure, P.Y. Director, Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd, Mumbai
2 Sinha, Prof. Ravi Professor, IIT Mumbai
3 Subbarao, Dr. Chairman & Managing Director, Construma Consultancy (P) Ltd. Mumbai
Harshavardhan
Ex-Officio Members
1 President, (Basar, Toli)
Indian Roads Congress Chief Engineer, PWD, Arunachal Pardesh
2 Honorary Treasurer, (Pandey, I.K.)

Indian Roads Congress Director General (Road Development) & Spl. Secretary, Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways
3 Secretary General, Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
ii
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Code of Practice on Limit State Design for Foundations
Introduction
The present IRC:78, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges Section VII –
Foundation and Sub-Structure is based on working stress design. The Indian Roads Congress
had taken a decision to adopt Limit State Design approach for design of all components of bridge
structures and had directed various Committees to evolve codes on Limit State Approach. The
work of Foundation design, based on Limit State was assigned to B-3 Committee. The document
was drafted by Mr. T. Viswanathan. It was discussed in several meetings of the B-3 Committee
and was revised a number of times. The Committee also decided that an Explanatory Note and
Worked out examples, using both the limit state approach and working stress approach be also
included in the document for easy understanding of the users. The worked-out examples were
provided by Mr Navneet Gupta and Mr Sanjay Kumar Jain.
The draft document was approved by B-3 Committee in its 11th meeting held on 2.8.2019.
Since revision of IRC:78 is likely to take some more time the Committee decided to recommend
publication of this document as IRC:78-Part 2. The B-3 Committee also recommended that
option may be given to designers for the next 2 years to follow either the working stress method
as per present IRC:78 which will be renumbered as IRC:78 Part 1 on revision or as per Limit
State approach given in this Part 2 for design of foundations for bridges.
The Draft Document was approved by the Bridges Specification and Standards Committee in its
meeting held on 6.12.2019 with certain observations. The draft was modified as per observations
of BSS Committee. Subsequently, the draft was approved by the Executive Committee on
19.12.2019. The draft was discussed and approved by the Council of the Indian Roads Congress
in its 219th meeting held at Patna on 19.12.2019.
The designer may carry out deign of foundation using the current provision as per IRC:78 using
working stress philosophy with unfactored loads or as per this code using partial load factors and
material resistance factors. Both these philosophies will continue to operate simultaneously for
such period till provision of working stress method is withdrawn.
References have been made to certain clauses of other IRC and IS codes. Those are as prevailing
in December, 2019. Any revision in those codes may be duly considered by the designer.
The task was completed by B-3 Committee with the following personnel:
Sharma, R.S. …… Convenor

Basa, Ashok …… Co-Convenor
Gaharwar, Dr. S.S. …… Member-Secretary
Members
Arora, Daljit Singh Mahajan, Dr. Ratnakar R.
Bagli, Shahrokh Maheshwari, Dr. B.K.
Bongirwar, P.L. Marwah, M.P.
Chadha, Neeraj Mayur, P.V.
Das, S.K. Prakash, R.
1
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Garg, Sanjay Rana, Dr. Sanjay

Gupta, Navneet Rep. of BRO (Yadav, P.N.)
Jaigopal, R.K. Sinha, A.K.
Jain, Sanjay Kumar Subbarao, Dr Harshavardhan
Khanna, Ms. Shobha
Corresponding Members
Kanhere , Dr. D.K. Viswanathan, T.
Ex-Officio Members
President, (Basar, Toli), Chief Engineer, PWD
Indian Roads Congress Arunachal Pradesh
Director General (Road Development) (Pandey, I.K.), Ministry of Road Transport
& Special Secretary to Govt. of India and Highways, New Delhi
Secretary General, Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
1. Symbols
1) Latin Letters
AC The area of base of foundation in contact with soil
L, B Dimensions of foundations
CR1 CR2 CR3 Correlation factors
CR4 CR5 CR6
Cu Un-drained shear strength
Cud Design value of un-drained shear strength
d Diameter of circular foundation
e Eccentricity of vertical loads in longitudinal direction for single axis eccentricity
eB Eccentricity of vertical loads in transverse direction
eL Eccentricity of vertical loads in longitudinal direction
GR1 GR2 GR3 Partial factor for ground Resistance in case of pile foundations
GR4 GR5 GR6
GRS GRA
R1, R2 Partial factor for ground resistance in case of open foundation
Hd Factored design horizontal force at base foundation
M Model factor
QRd Reduced capacity of pile based on partial factor for ground Resistance
Qtd Design shaft tensile resistance of pile
Qtk Characteristic shaft tensile resistance of pile
Quc Characteristic compressive resistance or capacity of pile
Qubc Characteristic base resistance of pile
Qufc Characteristic shaft resistance of pile
Qud Ultimate design resistance of pile
2
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Rd Design value of resistance

V Total design vertical load acting normal to foundation base
2) Greek letters
Δ Structure ground interface friction angle (wall or base interface)
γb Partial factor for base resistance of pile
γc Partial factor for effective cohesion
γcu partial factor for un-drained shear strength
γm Partial factor for soil parameter
γqu Partial factor for unconfined compressive strength
γs Partial factor for shaft resistance of a pile
γst Partial factor for tensile resistance of pile
γt Partial factor for combined resistance of pile or Partial factor for the density
of the soil
φ Angle of shearing resistance of soil
φ/ Design angle of shearing resistance of soil.
σv Base pressure
For terms and definitions Section 3 of IRC:112 may be referred.
ULS Ultimate Limit State

SLS Serviceability Limit State
UCS Ultimate Compressive Strength
SV Special Vehicle
FOS Factor of Safety
2. Design Philosophy and Verifications under Ultimate and

Serviceability Limit States
2.1 Design Philosophy

Limit state design philosophy will ensure that the foundation will be safe with regards to the
various limit state requirements under different design situations. The philosophy will ensure that
the limits stated herein are not exceeded during the life of the structure.
The limit states can be divided into two types, Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit
State (SLS).
Under the ultimate limit state, the loss of equilibrium of the structure, excessive deformation of
the ground (no bearing failure) and loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift
by buoyancy, and adequacy of capacities of various elements etc. are verified. For illustration
the modes of such failures of open foundation are shown in Fig. 1 and 2.
Under serviceability limit state, the contact area of base, the bearing pressure under open and
well foundations and settlement for the foundations are to be investigated.
3
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
The procedure outlined in the following sections shall be used for, assessing the effects on
structure and elements resulting from the geotechnical actions which shall be appropriately
combined with effects of other relevant actions to design the foundations. The structural design
of members of foundations shall be carried out in accordance with IRC: 112 and IRC:24 for
members in concrete and steel respectively. For substructures subjected to geotechnical force
(e.g., abutment, retaining wall excluding reinforced earth wall, abutment well cap and pile cap)
the structural design shall be carried out according to relevant codes for load combinations given
in Table B.4 of IRC: 6 for ultimate limit state using appropriate material safety factors on soil and
as per Table B.3 of IRC: 6 for serviceability limit state.
The Code is applicable for geotechnical design of open foundation, well (Cassion) foundation,
and pile foundation with limit state approach.
2.2 Combinations of Loads and Forces for Limit State Design of Open Foundation
The verifications shall to be carried out under the ultimate limit state for loss of equilibrium
and bearing resistance failure for combinations of loads and forces as per Clause 2.2.1. The
verification under serviceability limit state shall be carried out as per Clause 2.2.2.
2.2.1 Verification under ultimate limit state

Verifications shall be carried out for:
a) Loss of equilibrium (i.e. overturning),
b) Overall stability,
c) Sliding of foundation and uplift,
d) Bearing resistance failure, and
e) Loss of equilibrium due to uplift of structure subjected to hydraulic uplift.
The verifications for a) to c) and e) shall be carried out using loads and forces as per Table B.1
of IRC:6 and partial material safety factor as per Table 1.
Bearing resistance failure shall be verified using the following combinations of loads and forces
given in Table B.4 of IRC:6, and partial factor on materials and ground resistance factors as
shown under relevant clauses of this code:
i) Load combination 1 + partial factor on materials set 1 value+ resistance factor
R1.
ii) Load combination 2 + partial factor on materials set 2 value + resistance factor
R1
iii) Seismic combination + partial factor on materials set 2 value + resistance factor
R2
iv) Accidental combination + partial factor on materials set 1 value + resistantce
factor R1
(Meaning of "+" is combined with)
4
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Fig. 1 Failure of Shallow Foundations
Fig. 2 Failure of Reinforced Concrete retaining wall
2.2.2 Verification under serviceability limit state

Under serviceability limit state the following verifications shall be carried out
(a) Contact area of base where applicable under frequent combination
(b) Base pressure under rare combination
(c) settlement under quasi permanent combination
5
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3. Open Foundation
3.1 Check for loss of equilibrium:

The structure loses its equilibrium when it overturns or slides or gets uplifted. Hence it shall be
ensured that the structure neither over turns nor slides. The uplift verification shall necessarily
be carried out where buoyancy forces are significant.
3.1.1 Verifications against overturning and overall stability

Verification against overturning for all structures and over turning and overall stability for
foundations supporting the retaining structure or abutments shall be carried out using the partial
factors for loads and forces given in Table B.1 of IRC: 6 for all the combinations. The partial
factor for water pressure shall be taken as 1.0, if encountered. However partial factor needs to
be applied on the geo technical materials which are which are given in Table 1, while computing
the effect of geo-technical actions for converting characteristic values to design values.. The
computed geotechnical forces (Loads) are to be further multiplied by partial factor given in Table
B.1 of IRC:6. The design parameter for geo technical material to be adopted for computation of
geo technical force shall be calculated from the characteristic parameter. Design Parameter =
Characteristic Parameter obtained from tests/γm except for design angle of shearing resistance.
The design angle of shearing resistance shall be computed as per note given below Table 1.The
partial factor on materials shown in Table 1 are applicable to check stability (e.g. over turning,
over all stability, sliding and uplift).
Table 1 Partial Factor for Soil Parameter (γm ) for stability verification
Soil Parameter Symbol Partial Factors

Angle of Shearing Resistance φ 1.1
Effective Cohesion γc 1.1
undrained Shear Strength γcu 1.2
Unconfined compressive strength γqu 1.2
Density γt 0.9
Note: Design angle of shearing resistance = φ1= tan-1(tanφ/γm)

It shall be ensured that the overturning moment ≤ Resisting Moment
3.1.2 Verification against sliding

The verification against sliding shall be carried out by using the, partial factors for loads and
forces as per Table B.1 of IRC:6. The partial factor for materials for computing the geo technical
forces shall be adopted given in Table 1. It shall be ensured that factored design horizontal
forces are less than the resisting forces.
i) Verification for foundations, except on cohesive stratum in undrained condition:
Hd ≤ Vtanδ Eq. 1
Where,
Hd = Factored design horizontal forces acting at base of foundation
6
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
V = The factored design vertical forces acting at base of foundation
tanδ = can be taken as tanφ1 between soil and concrete, 0.95 between good rock
and concrete, and 0.85 between fissured rock and concrete.
ii) Verification for foundations on cohesive stratum in undrained condition:
Hd ≤ Rd Eq. 2
Where,
Rd = The design resistance (Rd) for cohesive soil in undrained condition
should be taken as
Rd= Ac Cud
Where,
Ac = The area of base in contact as per Clause 3.2.3
Cud = The factored undrained design shear strength = Cu /γcu.
This verification shall be carried out after calculating the contact area of the base as per Clause
3.2.3.
3.2 Verification for Bearing Resistance

The pressure transmitted by the foundation shall not exceed the ultimate bearing resistance
under any combination.
3.2.1 Partial factor for loads and combination of loads

The bearing resistance shall be verified for the factored loads and forces and their combinations
Table given in Table B.4 of IRC: 6. Wherever water pressure is encountered, the partial factor
shall be taken as 1.0 for the same.
3.2.2 Partial factor on materials

Geotechnical forces, bearing capacity or ground capacity for design of foundations shall be
computed using the design properties for the materials which are obtained from characteristic
properties by using the partial factors for materials given in Table 2. The method of obtaining
the design parameters for geotechnical materials from the characteristic parameters shall be as
specified in Clause 3.1.1.
Table 2 Partial Factor for Soil Parameters (γm) for computing the
geotechnical forces and bearing capacity
Soil Parameter Symbol Set 1 Set 2

To be used in To be used in
Combination (1) Combination (2)
and in Accidental and in seismic
Combination combination
Angle of Shearing Resistance φ 1.0 1.25
Effective Cohesion γc 1.0 1.25
Undrained Shear Strength γcu 1.0 1.4
7
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
unconfined compressive strength γqu 1.0 1.4

Density γt 1.0 1.0
Note: Design angle of shearing resistance = φ1= tan-1(tanφ/γm)
3.2.3 Calculation of bearing pressure for foundations resting on Soil:

When foundation is subjected to moment about one or both axes, the base pressure shall be
calculated assuming a uniformly distributed pressure over an effective base area. The centre
of gravity of total vertical loads, including self load of the base and with due consideration to
eccentricity of loads, shall coincide with the center of gravity of the effective base area. The
pressure on effective area shall be assumed to be uniform, equal to total vertical load divided by
effective base area. The principle is illustrated for rectangular footing in Fig. 3 and 4.
MP
REDUCED EFFECTIVE AREA L
1
L
B/2
e
B
eB B1
P
(L-2e)
.
eL
L/2
L e
POINT OF LOAD APPLICATION ULS PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
Reduced Footing Dimensions ULS Pressure Distribution
Fig. 3 Double Axes Eccentricity Fig. 4 Single Axis Eccentricity
In case of rectangular footing subjected to load with eccentricity about one axis, the bearing
pressure transmitted is as below:
σv = ΣV/(L-2e) (B) Eq. 3
In case of rectangular footing subjected to load with eccentricity about both axes the bearing
pressure transmitted is as below:
σv = ΣV/(L-2eL) (B-2eB) Eq. 4
ΣV = Total design vertical load acting normal to foundation base
σv = The bearing pressure transmitted.
L and B are dimensions of foundation
L1 abd B1 are reduced dimensions of foundation in contact with base stratum
e, eL and eB are eccentricities.
8
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
In case of circular footing the bearing pressure transmitted will be as below:
σv = ΣV/Effective area of contact. Eq. 5
Table 3 gives the contact area for typical e/d ratios. For any other ratio the contact shall be
calculated.
Table 3 Area of Contact
e/d 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.20

Area of contact 76% 70% 64 50%
It shall be ensured that the minimum contact of base area both for rectangular and circular
foundation, shall not be less than 50% of actual area of the foundation under all four combinations.
The bearing pressure as per this clause is a check for safety of the foundation size. For structural
design purpose the base pressure shall be calculated as per Clause 3.2.5.
3.2.4 Calculation of Bearing Pressure on Rock

When the foundation is supported on Rock, the base pressure shall be calculated by assuming
a linearly varying pressure over effective base area. The contact pressure diagram will be either
triangle or trapezoidal.
The centre of gravity of load system shall coincide with centre of gravity of effective base area.
The minimum contact area of base of 67% shall be ensured for all four combinations. When the
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) of the base stratum equal to or more than 4 Mpa, it
shall be treated as rock for the purpose of this Clause.
3.2.5 Calculation of bearing pressure for structural design of foundation

For the structural design of an eccentrically loaded foundation, a triangular or trapezoidal contact
pressure depending upon the eccentricity based on the factored loads shall be worked out and
used both for the foundations resting on soil and rock. The structural design of foundation shall
be carried out as per IRC:112.
3.2.6 Calculation of allowable bearing capacity. (Resistance)

The ultimate design net bearing capacity for soils shall be calculated as per IS: 6403 using the
partial factor for materials as per Table 2 for the respective combinations. The reduced dimensions
corresponding to effective area of the foundation shall be used for estimating the ultimate net
bearing capacity which will lead to calculation of bearing capacity for each combination. The
bearing capacity thus worked out shall be further divided by the following ground resistance
factors to arrive at the allowable ultimate design bearing capacity.
Resistance factor R1 for foundations resting on soil shall be 1.3 for all combinations except for
seismic combination. For seismic combination resistance factor R2 shall be 1.1. For foundations
resting on rock, the resistance factor shall be 4.5.
3.3 Verification of Uplift Limit State

Verification of uplift limit state is required for structures subjected to uplift force e.g. an underpass
subjected to uplift due to ground water level raising above the foundation level. The check shall
9
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
be carried out for the combinations shown in Table B.1 of IRC: 6. The partial factor for loads shall
be adopted as per Table mentioned above. Any additional resistance (Rd) to counter the uplift is
mobilized either by providing tension piles ( shall be considered only for resisting uplift force) or
anchors or both. The design additional resistance shall be computed by dividing the calculated
characteristic additional resistances (Rd) by the partial factors given below:
For Anchors 1.1
For tensile pile resistance as given under pile foundation section (Table 10). For soil parameters
to be used in the computation of the resistance, the partial factors on materials shown in Table
1 shall be applied (Angle of Shearing resistance, effective Cohesion, undrained Shear Strength,
Density). Verification for uplift shall be carried out by checking the design value of combination
of unfavorable uplift forces is less than or equal to sum of resisting forces and of any additional
resistance to uplift. V is the vertical loads or forces.
V unfavorable < V favorable + Design additional Resistance
Verification against uplift failure of the block of ground containing the piles and ground anchors
shall also be carried out using partial factors on materials shown in Table 1.
While considering the uplift, of the block of ground containing the tension piles, the shear
resistance along the sides of the block, the self weight of soil in the block and weight of piles
shall be added to other resisting self weights if any with the partial factor shown in Table B.1 of
IRC: 6 for stabilizing actions
Such foundations where tension piles are provided to resist the uplift shall not be treated as piled
raft foundation or pile foundations for resisting compressive loads.
3.4 Verification of Serviceability Limit State

Verification of serviceability limit consists of verification contact area of base, bearing pressure
and settlement under the foundation. For these verifications the partial factor on materials shall
be taken as 1.0
3.4.1 Verification of contact area of base and bearing pressure

The contact area of base under foundation shall be verified using the frequent Combination of
loads shown in Table B.3 of IRC:6. The partial factor for buoyancy shall be taken as 1.0
For foundation resting on soil, at least 90% contact area of the base shall be ensured. In case of
foundations resting on rock, at least 80% contact area of base shall be ensured. The pressure
distribution under foundation shall be worked out based on either trapezoidal on triangular
variation. The maximum base pressure shall be checked under the rare combination of action
as per Table B.3 of IRC:6.
The factor of safety for working out allowable base pressure from ultimate bearing capacity shall
be as below:
For foundations resting on soil 2.25
For foundations resting on rock 7
10
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.4.2 Calculation of Settlement
For the calculation of settlement under the foundation the Quasi permanent combination as per
Table B.3 of IRC:6 shall be used. The settlement calculation shall be as per IS:8009 Part 1.
Rapid settlement may occur in cohesion less or granular soils (medium-dense or firm layer
overlaying rock or hard soil) often as the foundation is loaded. Settlement occurring during the
construction of foundation and substructure is not critical for serviceability and functioning of
the bridge. Foundations resting on this kind of soil, calculation of settlement shall be carried out
using superstructure loads only. However for computation of settlement for foundation resting on
cohesive soil, the immediate settlement shall be computed using superstructure loads and for
computation of total settlement including consolidation settlement, total loads shall be used. The
total settlement shall comprise of both immediate and long-term settlements.
3.4.3 Differential settlement

The differential settlement shall be checked between adjacent foundations. The angular distortion
of superstructure resulting on account of differential settlement shall not exceed 1.in 400.
3.5 Special Vehicle (SV) Loading
3.5.1 Verifications
Verification of equilibrium, base pressure and strength checks shall be carried out under ULS for
load combinations 1 and 2 as per Clause 2.2.1.
Verification of base pressure and strength check for rare combination of loads under SLS shall
also be carried out. The Partial factor on SV loading shall be taken as 1.15 as per in Clause
204.5.4 of IRC:6 for ULS verifications except for combination 2. For combination 2 and rare
combination under SLS, the partial factor on SV loading shall be taken as 1.0.
3.5.2 Method of Verification

For the load combinations all the relevant clauses for verification with loads and combinations,
already specified in this Code shall be applicable with the following modifications for carrying out
the verifications for this load.
(a) The ground resistance factor shall be 1.2 as against 1.3 mentioned in Clause 3.2.6
for arriving at the allowable ultimate bearing capacity under combination 1 and 2 for
foundations resting on soil. For foundations resting on rock the ground resistance
factor shall be taken as 4.5
(b) The factor of safety of 1.75 shall be ensured on ultimate bearing capacity as against
2.25 mentioned in Clause 3.4.1 while checking the base pressure under rare
combination of loads for foundations resting on soil.
(c) Factor of safety of 6.0 shall be ensured as against 7.0 mentioned in Clause 3.4.1
while checking the base pressure under rare combination of loads for foundations
resting on rock.
11
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.6 Other provisions
Other provisions for open foundation not covered in the above clauses shall be governed by the
provisions given in Clause 705 and 707 of IRC: 78.
4. Pile Foundation
4.1 General
This section covers the design of end-bearing pile, friction pile, tension pile and laterally loaded
pile installed by boring or driving, resting on Soil or Rock or Intermediate Geo-materials. The sub
sections cover Actions, Combination of Actions, estimation of axial capacity of pile, acceptance
criteria, design of pile subjected to axial loads and/or lateral loads.
4.2 Loads and Load Combinations

The loads to be considered for the design are given in Table B.4 of IRC:6 along with their
partial factors for actions for various combinations. Combinations, to be considered are load
combination 1, load combination 2, seismic combination and accidental combination. Certain
actions are not covered in the above Table and the same are indicated below along with their
partial factors.
(a) Negative skin friction effect from the ground. The partial factor for this force, in
combination 1 and in accidental combination shall be taken as 1.35 and for the
remaining combinations it shall be 1.0.
(b) Pile foundations are subjected to lateral Geo-technical actions such as, due to
different amounts of surcharge on either side of foundation (e.g near abutment), due
to different level of excavation on either side, foundation constructed on slope etc.
The partial factor for this loading in combination 1 shall be 1.50 and in Combination 2
shall be1.3 and in other combinations it shall be 1.0.
(c) Pile foundations in seismic zone are also be subjected to lateral loads due to seismic
action. The partial factors on sesismic actions shall be as specified in IRC 6.
4.3 Set value of partial factor (γm) for Geo-technical materials to be used for
computation of force and ground Resistance
The Set to be used for computation of geotechnical force and ground resistance from Geo-
technical materials (soil, rock and intermediate Geo-materials) under different load combinations
is given in Table 4. The partial factors for the relevant Set may be obtained from Table 2.
12
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Table 4 Set Values of Partial Factor(γm) to be used for Material for
Computation of Geo Technical Force/Ground resistance.
S. No. Combination Set

1. For computation of ground resistances (both in vertical and in lateral direction), 1
negative skin friction effects, and estimation of geotechnical lateral forces
including those specified in Clause 4.2 for combination 1
2. For computation of ground resistance in vertical direction in Combination 2, and 1
in seismic combination
3. In Combination 2 and in seismic combination for estimation of ground resistance 2
in lateral direction, computation of negative skin friction effects and estimation of
geotechnical lateral forces including those specified in Clause 4.2
4. In accidental combination for estimation of ground resistance in vertical direction 1
and estimation of negative skin friction effects
5. In accidental combination for estimation of ground resistance in lateral direction and 2
estimation of geo technical lateral forces including those specified in Clause 4.2.
The vertical ground resistance shall be computed always using set 1 value only for materials,
in all combinations for piles subjected to both compressive and tensile forces. The partial factor
for ground resistance for combination 1 is GR1 and for combination 2 is GR2, GRS for seismic
combination and GRA for accidental combination which shall be obtained from Table 5. For
computation of negative skin friction effect on the piles, the characteristic undrained shear
strength or unconfined compressive strength (for calculation of shear strength,) the material
safety factor shown in Table 2 shall be used as multiplier and not as a divider to arrive at the
design value from the characteristic value Taking into account the actions, combinations, partial
factor on materials and ground resistance factors, the combinations can be expressed as
Load combination 1 + Partial factor on materials set 1 value + Ground resistance
factor GR1
Load combination 2 + Partial factor on materials set 2 or set 1 value as per above
table + Ground resistance factor GR2
Seismic combination + Partial factor on materials set 2 or set 1 value as per above
Table + Ground resistance factor GRS
Accidental combination + Partial factor on materials set 2 or set 1 value as per above
Table + Ground resistance factor GRA
(Meaning of “+” is combined with.)
4.4 Ultimate Limit States Verifications

The following ultimate limit states shall be verified for the pile foundation.
(i) Loss of Equilibrium
(ii) Bearing Resistance Failure of the pile foundation through Pile Capacity
(iii) Uplift or tensile resistance of pile
(iv) Failure of the ground due to lateral loading on pile
(v) Structural failure of pile
13
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4.4.1 Loss of Equilibrium
Loss of equilibrium, if required needs to be checked for short pile foundations only as the long
pile foundation is not liable to lose equilibrium.
4.4.2 Verification of bearing resistance for piles resting on soil through pile capacity.
4.4.2.1 Estimation of design axial compression load on a pile and pile groups.
The design axial load on a pile shall be estimated for all the 4 combinations described in clauses
4.2 and.4.3. The design axial compression load on a pile or on a group of piles shall not exceed
the corresponding axial capacity based on bearing resistance of the ground to avoid bearing
resistance failure. The self weight of pile with associated partial factor should be included while
calculating the design axial compression load under the following circumstances.
1) The down ward drag is significant
2) The exposed pile length of pile above scour level is large (> 60% of total length)
When the above conditions are not met with, then the common practice of assuming that the
weight of the pile is balanced by that of over burden allowing both to be excluded from load as
well as from resistance can be followed.
4.5 Calculation of Pile Capacity of Piles Resting on Soil

The pile capacity may be calculated by any one of the following methods.
a) By calculation, using the ground parameters obtained from site investigation
b) By calculation, from profiles of ground test results obtained from in-situ site
investigation
c) Directly from static pile load test
d) From Dynamic pile load tests
e) From pile driving formula
For the methods mentioned in a), b), d) and e) the static pile load test is required to be conducted
as specified in Clause 4.5.3 adhering to all requirements for verifying the theoretical capacity
worked out. For river bridges the scour effect shall be given due consideration while calculating
the capacity of pile and also during load testing.
4.5.1 Calculation of pile capacity using ground parameters from site investigation
The ground parameters can be obtained either from field in-situ tests such as vane shear test,
SPT or from lab tests on samples taken from the site. This method shall be adopted when the
capacity is calculated using equation or charts
Characteristic pile resistance (pile capacity) of the pile Quc is determined by calculating the
end bearing resistance and skin friction resistance along the pile surface based on the soil
parameters. The method of calculation of characteristic pile resistance or ultimate pile resistance
(Quc) is given in Appendix – 5 of IRC:78. The characteristic capacity thus arrived shall be further
divided by respective partial factor for ground resistance GR as per Table 5 and model factor M
in order to arrive at the design pile resistance (pile capacity) Partial factor for ground resistance
will also depend upon the method of installing the piles. If the pile resistance is calculated at
base and shaft components separately, then these resistances are to be divided by respective
14
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
partial ground resistance factors to obtain reduced resistances (capacity). The partial factor for
ground resistance shall be as per Table 5. For calculating reduced pile capacity the following
formulae shall be used:
The partial factor for ground resistance shall be as per Table 5. For calculating reduced pile
capacity the following formulae shall be used:
QRd= Qubc/γb + Qufc/γs Eq. 6
Where
Qubc = Characteristic base resistance
Qufc = Characteristic shaft resistance
QRd = Reduced capacity of pile based on partial factor for ground resistance.
Table 5 Partial Factor for Ground Resistance for Shaft in Compression
Component Symbol For bored Driven Pile GRS for GRA for accidental Model
and Seismic combination Factor
continuous Combination for bored
auger Pile and
GR1 GR2 GR1 GR2 For Ship auger
Vehicle Collision pile and
collision, driven
Log piles
Impact M
and
barge
collision
For Base γb 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.40 1.25 1.40 1.2
resistance
For shaft γs 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.15 1.25 1.15 1.2
resistance
Total combined γt 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.40 1.25 1.40 1.2
resistance
to be used.
When shaft
and base
resistance are
not calculated
seperately
Resistance factors shown under GR1 shall be used for arriving at the reduced resistance under
load combination1, Resistance factor shown under GR2 shall be used for arriving at the reduced
resistance under combination 2. GRS resistance factor shall be used for arriving at the reduced
resistance under seismic combination. GRA shall be used for arriving at the reduced resistance
under the respective accidental situations. In order to arrive at the design pile resistance or
capacity, QRd shall be further divided by a model factor M.
Qud = QRd/M Eq. 7
Where Qud = The ultimate design resistance or capacity of pile.
15
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
M = The model factor.
It shall be ensured that the design axial load imposed on piles in all combination Vcd ≤ Allowable
design resistance or capacity of pile Qud
The characteristic ultimate capacity of pile, (Qubc + Qufc) shall be load tested and ensured that the
displacement is less than 10% of the pile diameter. The number of tests and correlation factor
shall be in accordance with Table 7.
4.5.2
Calculation of Pile capacity from profiles of ground test results obtained from in-situ
site investigation
The static cone penetration test or pressure meter in-situ test shall be conducted at the project
location. Complete in-situ profile of the soil shall be obtained in order to adopt this method. Using
the observed parameters, the capacity of piles shall be obtained based on the resistances for
each location. The procedure as per Appendix-5 Clause 7 of IRC:78 shall be adopted in case
of cone penetration tests. This method is strictly applicable when the investigation is carried out
by in-situ method for obtaining the profile of the ground and no equation or charts are used to
compute the pile capacity. This is termed as calculated capacity of pile.
The mean calculated pile capacity shall be obtained from the calculated pile capacity for the
different locations. The lowest calculated capacity also shall be identified. Depending upon the
number of test locations, correlation factor (or the weightage factor) has also been suggested.
The correlation factor as per Table 6 shall be used to arrive at the characteristic capacity of pile
from the calculated capacity based on in-situ test results.
Table 6 Correlation Factor for obtaining the Characteristic Capacity of Pile

from Ground Profile Test Results
No. of tests 1 2 3 4 ≥5
CR1 1.40 1.30 1.29 1.25 1.23
CR2 1.40 1.26 1.20 1.17 1.14
The characteristic calculated capacity of pile = Minimum of [Mean calculated capacity/CR1
or Minimum calculated capacity/CR2]. (Minimum of the two to be taken as characteristic pile
capacity)
The characteristic calculated capacity thus obtained shall be further divided by the partial ground
resistance factors shown in Table 5 for arriving at the design resistance of pile. The resistance
factor shall be applied on total capacity as a single factor or can be applied separately on to the
friction and bearing components. If the capacity is arrived using two components the following
procedure shall be followed:
i) The characteristic capacity of pile = Minimum of ((mean of base capacity + mean
of shaft capacity)/CR1 or (Minimum of (base capacity + shaft capacity)/CR2).
For arriving at the minimum capacity the base and shaft resistances have to be
taken together for the same location
ii) If the mean capacity is governing, then the design capacity of pile = (mean base
capacity/(CR1x γb) + (mean shaft capacity/ (CR1x γs)).
iii) In case if the minimum capacity is governing, then the design capacity of pile =
(Minimum base capacity/ (CR2x γb) + corresponding shaft capacity/(CR2x γs))
16
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
or (Minimum shaft capacity/(CR2x γs) + corresponding base capacity/(CR2x γb)),
whichever is less. The minimum of base and shaft capacities shall be taken for
the same location. Calculated characteristic pile capacity shall be verified by
conducting load tests.
4.5.3 Calculation of Pile capacity from static load tests:

Pile capacity can also be arrived by conducting static load tests. Number of load tests can
be conducted. The capacity of pile shall be arrived based on settlement equivalent to 10% of
pile diameter. This is called measured pile capacity. The mean of measured capacity shall be
obtained. The minimum measured capacity shall also be identified.
The capacity of pile thus arrived shall be divided by the correlation factor to arrive at the allowable
characteristic design resistance or capacity of pile. Depending upon the number of test locations,
the correlation factor has been suggested. The correction factor shall be applied both on the
mean capacity and on the minimum capacity. The correlation factor to be used is given in Table 7.
Table 7 Correlation Factors for Obtaining the Characteristic Capacity of

Pile Foundation from Static Pile Load Test.
No. of tests 1 2 3 ≥4
CR3 1.40 1.33 1.29 1.25
CR4 1.40 1.22 1.11 1.04
The characteristic capacity of pile Quc = Minimum of [Mean measured capacity/CR3, or Minimum
measured capacity/CR4]
Design resistance of pile or pile capacity shall be obtained by dividing Quc by partial factor for
resistance shown in Table 5.
Qud = Quc/γt Eq. 8
4.5.4 Calculation of Pile Capacity from Dynamic testing using wave equation analysis.
Dynamic tests shall be used to estimate the resistance of the ground provided adequate site
investigations have been carried out in the form of boring and field tests. The test results have
to be calibrated against static load test for characteristic capacity. Static load tests shall be
conducted and all requirements shall be satisfied as given in Clause 4.5.3
The design value of the pile capacity is derived from the results of wave equation analysis on a
number of representative piles. It shall be assessed as follows.
Characteristic capacity of pile Quc= Minimum of [Mean capacity/CR5, Minimum capacity/CR6]
Design resistance of pile or capacity of pile = Characteristic pile capacity/γt.
The value of CR5 and CR6 are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Correlation Factors for Obtaining the Characteristic Capacity of Pile by Dynamic Testing
No. of tests ≥2 ≥5 ≥10 Remarks

CR5 1.94 1. 85 1.83 These factor shall be multiplied by a
CR6 1.50 1.35 1.30 factor 0.85 if signal matching is carried
out
17
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4.5.5 Calculation of pile capacity from pile driving formula.
The requirements as stated under 4.5.4 will be applicable for this method also. The CR factors
stated in Table 8 are also applicable with the following modifications. The values shall be multiplied
by model factor 1.1 when the quasi – elastic pile head displacement is measured and 1.2 when it
is not. Appendix-7 of IRC: 78 (Part 1), method 2 can be followed for arriving at the resistances.
4.5.6 Negative skin friction

Piles which are taken through a fill to a suitable bearing stratum in the underlying natural soil or
rock no support for compressive loads from shaft friction shall be assumed over the length of the
pile shaft passing through fill due to downward movement of the fill as it compresses under its
own weight or under the weight of the further surcharge placed over the fill area. This downward
movement results in drag forces known as negative skin friction on the pile shaft. Clause 4.2
shall be referred to for the partial factor for this action. The partial factor on undrained shear
strength given in Table No. 2 for set 2 to be used for assessment of negative skin friction force
for combination2 and seismic combination. For other combinations set 1 value shall be used.
Method of application of partial factor on materials given in Clause 4.3.may be referred to
Using pile soil interaction, the depth of neutral point within this compressive layer shall be arrived
which gives the length of pile subjected to negative skin friction. Alternatively as a simpler
approach the entire length of the pile passing through the compressible layer can be taken as
the length of pile subjected to skin friction. The negative skin friction force can be estimated
to act over this length along the surface of the pile using the partial safety factor on undrained
shear strength. For piles driving capacity predominantly from friction, the arrived downward drag
force shall be multiplied by 0.25 and for piles which are predominantly end bearing, it shall be
multiplied by 0.5 to arrive at the design force due to negative skin friction.
4.6 Group Action of Piles
4.6.1 Piles subjected to compressive loads

For the piles founded in clay soil, the group capacity may be estimated as given in Clause 709.3.3
(ii) of IRC:78. For block failure the base resistance and side resistance shall be estimated for
each combination. The ground resistance factor given under open foundation shall be used to
arrive at the base resistance capacity of the block which shall be added to the side resistance
capacity to arrive at the total capacity of block. The material safety factor used for estimation
of block capacity shall be same as used to estimate the capacity of individual piles. However,
ground resistance factor 1.3 or 1.1 will be applicable given under open foundation. The partial
factor for loads will be same as used for the calculation of loads on individual piles.
4.6.2 Piles subjected to negative skin friction

Piles passing through a fill will be subjected to negative skin friction effects. No support to
compressive loads from the skin friction shall be assumed over this length. The skin friction
on group of shall be estimated as follows. The lesser of the value (a) or (b) shall be used as
negative skin friction effect on group of piles.
a) Number of piles x Negative skin friction effect on single pile
b) Plan area of the block enclosing all piles x length of pile as estimated in Clause
4.5.6 x density of soil in this block
18
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4.7 Calculation of Pile Capacity for piles resting on Rock and Intermediate Geo-
Materials
4.7.1 Behavior of pile foundation resting on Rock:

The load–penetration curve for rock of medium strength or less (≤ 100 Mpa) has a large plastic
component despite the brittle nature of rock. The displacements required to mobilize the full
bearing capacity of such rocks are very large and that a factor safety of 3 or 4 is required
to limit the displacement to less than 2% of the diameter. Very brittle rocks (≥ 150 Mpa) do
not exhibit plastic load -penetration curve and once the maximum strength is exceeded at any
point in the brittle material total collapse occurs. Hence to limit the displacement, as such large
displacements cannot be achieved at the site, the serviceability limit state approach has been
suggested as a principal approach for design and verification by load tests. However only the
capacity of pile at the ultimate state is required to be verified.
The allowable load on the pile under serviceability limit state shall be calculated from any of the
following methods
(1) By calculation using the ground parameters obtained from site investigation
(2) Directly from static load tests
For method (1) static load tests need to be performed for correlation of pile capacity obtained by
calculations
4.7.2 Socketing length for pile

The socket length for piles shall be provided as follows
(a) For hinged piles resting on rock proper seating has to be ensured. The minimum
socket length should be 300 mm in hard rock and 0.5 times the diameter of the pile in
weathered rock
(b) For moment carrying pile or pile fixed at base the length of socket shall be arrived as
per Clause 9.2 of Appendix -5 of Part1 of IRC:78
4.7.3
Calculation of pile capacity using ground parameters from site investigation for
serviceability limit state
The ultimate axial load carrying capacity of the pile is determined by calculating the socket
resistance and end bearing resistance separately based on the properties of rock obtained by
laboratory testing or based in N value, as out lined in Clause 9.1 of Appendix-5 of IRC:78. The
ultimate capacity thus calculated shall be further divided by the relevant ground resistance factors
3.0 for the base resistance and 6.0 for socket resistance given in Appendix- 5 of IRC:78 to obtain
the allowable load on pile under Rare combination given in Table B.3 of IRC:6. The end bearing
component contribution after dividing by ground resistance factor shall be further limited to 5 Mpa.
For calculation of socket friction capacity, the top 300 mm depth of rock shall be neglected. The
frictional capacity shall be further limited to a depth of six times the diameter of pile. The displacement
of pile under rare combination of load shall not exceed the limit specified in Clause 4.7.5.
4.7.4 Allowable load on pile from static load tests

The pile load test shall be conducted to satisfy the displacement limit specified in Clause 4.7.5.
The load thus obtained from load tests shall be divided by correlation factor given in Table 7
19
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
of Clause 4.5.3 depending up on the number of tests conducted to arrive at the allowable load
under rare combination.
4.7.5 Allowable displacement under allowable load for rare combination

The displacement under allowable load shall be limited to
For piles having diameter less than 600 mm -2 % of pile diameter but limited to 10 mm
For piles having diameter 600 mm or more -2 % of the pile diameter but limited to 18 mm
The displacement under the pile can be estimated theoretically by using IS:14593
4.7.6 Verification of pile capacity under ultimate loads

The characteristic capacity of pile using the partial factor on material set 1 value given in Table 2
shall be computed. For calculating the characteristic capacity Qu, Clause 9 .1 of Appendix-5 of
IRC:78 shall be used. The ultimate frictional and base resistances shall be calculated separately.
Calculated resistances shall be further divided by the partial factors for ground resistance shown
in Table 9 and added to get the design capacity. The design capacity shall be compared with the
axial forces applied on the pile.
GR3 resistance factors are to be adopted to estimate the reduced resistance of the pile under
action combination 1. GR4 values are to be used for combination 2. GRS resistance factor
shall be used for arriving at the reduced resistance under seismic combination. GRA shall be
used for arriving at the reduced resistance under the respective accidental situation. In addition
model factor of 1.15 shall be used along with the resistance factors to get the calculated design
resistance of piles.
The allowable end bearing component after dividing by the resistance factor and modal factor
shall be limited to 8.0 Mpa under all combinations. For calculation of socket friction capacity,
the top 300 mm depth of rock shall be neglected. The friction capacity shall be further limited to
depth of six times the diameter of pile.
Table 9 Partial Factor for ground Resistance for rock and intermediate geo materials
Component Symbol For bored and GRS for GRA for Accidental Combination
continuous augur Seismic
flight piles
GR3 GR4 For Vehicle collision, Ship
Log Impact and barge Collision
collision
For Base γb 1.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.9
resistance
For Socket γs 3.0 4.8 3.9 3.0 3.9
resistance
For Combined γt 1.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.9
resistance
4.7.7 Load test on piles

Load tests on piles shall be carried out for arriving at the capacity or verification of capacity
already calculated or for correlation/verification of capacity when the capacity is estimated by
20
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
methods other than load tests. The test pile will be of same type, length, cross section and
comparable soil parameters. Reinforcement in pile shall be as provided in actual pile. Piles will
be subjected to characteristic loads for piles resting on soil and to allowable load under rare
combination in case of piles resting on rock.
4.7.8 Group action of Piles

There will not be any block failure for piles founded on rock. The capacity of group shall be taken
as total capacity of the piles in the group.
4.8 Verification of Tensile Resistance of Pile Foundation
4.8.1 Combination of loads:

In order to arrive at the design tensile resistance of an isolated pile, the load combinations as
per Table B.4 of IRC:6 shall be followed. However the partial safety factor for actions shall be
modified as follows.
Permanent actions resisting the tensile force, the partial factor shall be taken as 1.0. These
actions are considered favorable actions in all combinations. However, if the permanent actions
increase the tensile force, the same may be considered with the partial factors as per the Table
B.4. For buoyancy the partial factor shall be taken as 1.0.
4.8.2 Resistance capacity of single pile:

The tensile resistance capacity of the pile is dependent on the friction around the shaft and the
weight of pile. The Buoyant weight of pile is calculated with partial factor as 1.0. The shaft tensile
resistance of single pile shall be calculated using the partial factor on material properties of set
1 value shown in Table 2 for all the combinations. The frictional resistance offered by shaft can
be assessed by any of the following methods
(a) By direct calculation from the ground parameters obtained from site investigation
(b) By carrying out pull out tests
(c) By calculating from ground profile test results
4.8.3 Calculation of shaft tensile resistance of pile in soil:
4.8.3.1 Calculation of shaft tensile resistance from ground parameters

The shaft frictional resistance Qufc offered by the pile shall be calculated using Clause 2 of
Appendix-5 of IRC:78.
This shall be treated as characteristic shaft tensile resistance of pile Qtk. This characteristic
resistance shall be further divided by partial factor for ground resistance and model factor given
in Table 10 for the design shaft tensile resistance of pile Qtd, which may be calculated as below:
Design shaft tensile resistance, Qtd = Qtk/(γst M) Eq. 9
21
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Table 10 Partial Factor for Resistance for Tension or uplift Piles in soil
Resistance Symbol GR5 For GR6 For GRS for GRA for Accidental Model
combination combination Seismic Combination Factor
1 2 M
For Vehicle Ship
collision, Collision
Log Impact
and barge
collision
Shaft in γst 1.0 2.0 1.60 1.25 1.60 1.5
Tension
4.8.3.2 Calculation of shaft tensile resistance from pull out test:

Pull out tests will be carried out at number of locations. The mean value of resistance shall be
calculated.
The characteristic shaft tensile resistance Qtk shall be Minimum of [Mean resistance/CR3, and
Minimum Resistance/CR4]
CR3 and CR4 are the modified partial factors as 1.1 times values mentioned in Table 7.
The design shaft tensile resistance Qtd = characteristic tensile resistance/partial factor for ground
resistance γst
Partial factor for ground resistance shall be taken from Table 10. The model factor shall not be
used
4.8.3.3 Calculation of shaft tensile resistance from ground profile test result (eg. Cone
penetration)
The shaft resistance shall be calculated using the ground parameters from the field tests.
Reference can be made to Clause 7 of Appendix-5 of IRC:78 for the calculation of shaft tensile
resistance. Resistance thus obtained is termed as calculated resistance. The characteristic
resistance shall be as given below.
Qtk characteristic shaft tensile resistance = Minimum of {Calculated mean resistance/CR1;
Minimum tensile resistance/CR2}
CR1 and CR2 values are modified partial factors, as 1.1 times the values as per Table 6.
The Characteristic shaft tensile resistance shall be divided by partial factor for ground resistance
γst as per Table 10 to arrive at the design shaft tensile resistance. Qtd. Model factor shall not be
used. The design shaft tensile resistance may be worked out by formula given below:
Qtd= Qtk/γst Eq. 10
4.8.3.4 Total Uplift Resistance of piles or group of piles in soil:

The Total uplift Resistance of a Single Pile (TRSP) will be equal to tensile resistance of single
pile + weight of pile as appropriate. The uplift resistance of single pile shall be calculated as
mentioned above.
22
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
The uplift resistance of group of piles when all of them are subjected to tensile force shall be
calculated as per Clause 709.3.6.3. of IRC:78 Part-1.
The shear resistance mobilized on the surface of perimeter shall be calculated using the partial
factors shown under set 1 on materials as per Table 2 for all combinations. The partial factor
on weight of soil contained in the block and self weight of pile shall be taken as 1.0. The tensile
resistance of group of piles subjected to tension or uplift shall be the lower of the sum of tensile
resistance of the capacity of individual piles in the group or the block resistance calculated as
above
4.8.3.5 Ultimate design uplift capacity of piles in rock or intermediate Geo-materials

The top 300 mm depth of the socket may be omitted for calculating the uplift capacity using ground
parameters. The ultimate socket resistance shall be calculated as per Clause 9 of Appendix-5
of IRC: 78 . The ultimate socket resistance shall be divided by the ground resistance factor for
socket resistance which may be taken from Table 9 and model factor 1.15 to obtain the design
resistance. The length of the socket shall be limited to 6 times the pile diameter. The frictional
resistance capacity of soil above the socket shall be calculated as per Clause 4.8.3.1 and added
to socket resistance capacity to arrive at the design ultimate pull out capacity of pile with socket
in rock. The self-weight of pile shall also be added. The design pull out capacity may also be
estimated from pull out tests. The correlation factor for pull out test shall be as per Table 7 and
multiplied by factor 1.1 shall be used to estimate the characteristic pull out capacity from tests.
The method as per Clause 4.8.3.2 shall be followed to work out the design uplift capacity using
the correlation factor and socket resistance factor as per Table 9 from the field test results. The
total uplift resistance of block shall be tensile capacity of all the piles in the group. Which is as
follows:
(Pile capacity of single pile × Number of piles).
4.9 Settlement and Serviceability Limit State:

Piles resting in medium to dense soils, the partial factor for ultimate design have been so chosen
that occurrence of serviceability limit state in the supported structure is prevented. Thus, the
settlement check is not required. However if settlement is required of the soil is not medium
to dense or the soil is a cohesive, the settlement may be calculated as per Clause 709.3.4 of
IRC:78 for quasi permanent load combination given in Table B3 of IRC:6 using IS 8009 Part 2.
4.10 Routine Load Test

The piles resting on soil shall be tested for 1.5 times of the rare combination of loads calculated
using Table B.3 of IRC:6. The settlement shall not exceed the settlement arrived based on
shear parameters and settlement parameters. The pile resting on rock shall be tested for rare
combination of load and the settlement shall satisfy Clause 4.7.5
4.11 Piles Subjected to Lateral Load
4.11.1 Ultimate horizontal capacity of pile

The design lateral Capacity of a pile shall be calculated and checked against all combinations of
factored loads shown in Table B-4 of IRC:6. For arriving at the characteristic lateral capacity the
23
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
partial factor on material, Set 2 values as per Table 2 shall be used to estimate the geo technical
forces and lateral resistances for combination 2, for seismic combination and for accidental
combination. For combination 1 partial factor for set 1 value shall be used. No ground resistance
factor needs to be applied in lateral direction. The characteristic lateral capacity thus arrived
shall be multiplied by partial factor shown in Table B-4 of IRC:6 to arrive at the design capacity
The ultimate horizontal capacity of the short pile shall be estimated by using Brinch Hansen’s
method or Broms method for which specialist literature (pile design and construction by M. J.
Tomlinson or H.G. Poulos or any other relevant literature) may be referred to. The piles will be
treated as fixed head when pile caps are provided.
In case of very long piles the passive resistance provided by the lower part of soil pile is quite
large. In such case the ultimate horizontal load which can be carried by the pile is determined
solely from the moment of resistance of the pile. Alternatively piles can be analyzed using special
software applicable to pile foundations taking care of the ultimate behavior of soils. It shall be
ensured that the resistance capacity of pile worked out shall be greater than the requirement
4.11.2 Ultimate horizontal capacity of piles in a group

The Design horizontal ultimate capacity of group of piles shall be arrived by calculating the passive
resistance using the Set 2 material safety factor given in Table 2 for combination2, seismic
combination and accidental combinations, and Set 1 values shall be used for combination1
over a wall depth equal to 6D and width equal to L+2 B where L,D and B are defined in Clause
709.3.5.1 of IRC:78 and multipled by partial factor on actions as given In Table B.4 of IRC:6.
However the lateral resistance of a pile group must not exceed the sum of lateral resistance of
individual piles
4.11.3 Horizontal capacity of pile under serviceability limit state:

The single pile resistance capacity shall be arrived by conducting lateral load test. The lateral
deflection shall not exceed 1% of pile diameter at scour level. In case of land piles where there
is no scour it shall be measured at pile cut off level i.e., at bottom of pile cap. The capacity shall
not be less than the capacity requirement for Rare combination of actions as per Table B-3 of
IRC:6. For other combinations no test need to be conducted.
4.12 Structural Analysis of pile:

The ultimate moment, obtained from the horizontal capacity worked out by any one of the above
methods shall be proportioned to the ultimate horizontal load applied on the individual pile to
obtain the design ultimate moment in the pile.
For serviceability limit state check, the moment in the pile can be obtained by treating the pile
as an elastic beam supported on soil springs using modulus of sub grade reaction or by using
Matlock and Reese method or by Broms method or equivalent cantilever method which is
applicable to light loading. The deflection shall be computed by using the above methods or
the method giving by Poulos and Davis.The equivalent cantilever method is an approximate
solution, applicable for calculation of deflection due to small loads.
24
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4.13 Structural Design of Pile
Structural design of pile shall be carried out as per IRC:112 for both ultimate limit state and
serviceability limit state.
For U.L.S Verification, combinations of actions as per Table B-4 of IRC:6 along with the relevant
partial factors for geo-technical materials shall be used to estimate the geo-technical forces.
For S.L.S verification, combination of actions as per Table B-3 of IRC: 6 with partial factor on
geo-technical materials as 1.0 shall be used to estimate geotechnical forces.
4.14 Special Vehicle Loading:
4.14.1 Verifications Required

Verification of pile capacity and strength checks are required to be carried out under ULS. The
partial factor of 1.15 as per Clause 204.5.4 IRC: 6 shall be applied for SV loading for combination
1 and the same shall be 1.0 for combination 2.

All the relevant clauses for other loadings shall also be applicable for verifications with the
following modifications:
(a) The ground resistance factors (GR) shall be reduced by 15% when using combination
2 for piles resting on soil when subjected to compressive loads.
(b) The ground resistance factor shall be taken as 1.2 for calculation the group block
capacity of piles as per Clause 4.6.1 for piles resting on soil and subjected to
compressive loads.
(c) The factored ultimate resistance of piles computed as per Clause 4.7.6 for combinations
1 and 2 shall be further increased by 1.25 times to arrive at the ultimate capacity
under this loading for piles resting on rock.
4.15 Other Provisions

Any provisions not covered in these sections shall be as per section 709 of IRC:78
5. Well Foundations
5.1 Limit State Verification of Side Earth Resistance and Bearing Resistance
The side earth resistance and bearing resistance of well foundation shall be verified for all the
four combinations outlined in Table B.4 of IRC:6.
The equilibrium check shall be carried out by using partial factor for material given in Table 1 and
for loads given in Table B.1 of IRC: 6 and resistance factors given in Clause 5.3 of this Code.
At first the partial factor on materials (given in Table 1 for equilibrium check and in Table 2 for
foundation design of this Code) shall be applied and the active and passive pressure forces shall
be calculated. Next partial factor as per Table B.1 for equilibrium check and Table B.4 of IRC:6
for foundation design shall be applied on these earth pressure forces (on active and passive
25
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
earth pressure forces). Finally, the calculated earth side resistance force and moment, both shall
be further divided by side resistance factor given in Clause 5.4 to obtain the design earth side
resistance and moment.
Similarly the characteristic base resistance shall be calculated by using the respective partial
factor on materials at first. The design base resistance shall be obtained by further dividing the
characteristic resistance by respective base resistance partial factor given in Clause 5.5.
5.2 Loads and Load Combinations

The following four combinations as per Table B.4 of IRC: 6 shall be considered.
(a) Load Combination 1
(b) Load Combination 2
(c) Seismic Combination
(d) Accidental Combination
The partial factors for loads shall be as per Table B.4 of IRC: 6. All the loads therein shall be
combined appropriately. For tilt and shift effects, the respective partial factor for loads shall be
used to arrive at the tilt and shift moment.
The principle of combinations is as follows:-
Load combination 1 + Partial factor on Material Set value 1+ Resistance factor for
side resistance and base resistance
Load combination 2 + Partial factor on Material Set value 2 + Resistance factor for
Seismic combination + Partial factor on Material Set value 2 + Resistance factor for
Accidental combination + Partial factor on Material Set value 2 + Resistance factor for
Meaning of “+” combined with
5.3 Partial factor for geo-technical Material for Computation of Resistances

Two sets of partial factors for materials (Set 1 and Set 2) are shown in Table 2. The active and
passive pressure co-efficient shall be calculated using Clause 1 of Appendix-3 of IRC:78 using
partial factor on material
The partial factors for Set 1 value shall be used to evaluate the geo technical force to check Load
Combination 1 and partial factors for Set 2 shall be used for remaining combinations. The partial
factors on materials shall be used both for arriving at the side earth resistance as well as the
base resistance. The side earth resistance shall be ignored in case of foundations when resting
on rock having a unconfined compressive strength more than 6 Mpa.
5.4 Resistance Factors for Side and Base Resistance and Limitation of Side
Resistance
5.4.1 Resistance factors for side and base resistance:

The partial factor for side resistance shall be 1.0 for all combinations
26
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
The partial factor for ground resistance (bearing capacity) shall be as in Table 11.
5.4.2 Limitation of side resistance

The following requirement shall also be satisfied for the combinations shown in Table B.4 of
IRC:6 for the design of foundation. The ratio of Characteristic net side resistance (Pp-Pa)/design
net side resistance (Pp-Pa) shall not be less than 1.9 for combination 2 and 1.5 for seismic and
accidental combinations. The Characteristic net side resistance shall be calculated by using both
partial safety factor for geo technical force and partial factor on materials as 1.0. For calculating
the design net side resistance the relevant partial factor on geo technical force and materials
shall be considered as explained in Clause 5.1.
5.5 Summary of Resistance Factor for Base Resistance

The base resistance factors as per Table 11, applicable for foundations resting on soil
Table 11 Summary of Base Resistance Factor for all Combinations
Combination Action Action Seismic Accidental

Combination (1) Combination (2) Combination Combination
Partial Factor Set 1 Set 2 Set 2 Set 2
for Materials for 1.35 1.10 1.0 1.0
Base Resistance
5.6 Verification of Base Resistance and Base Contact Area
5.6.1 Wells resting on soil

The base pressure will be verified for all the combinations shown in Table B.4 of IRC: 6 with the
appropriate partial factor on material and resistance. A minimum 80% of contact area of base
shall be ensured under all combinations. Linear triangular pressure distribution shall be assumed
for calculation of base pressure. The allowable bearing pressure shall be further restricted to 3.0
MPa.
5.6.2 Wells resting on rock

The base pressure shall be verified for all the combinations shown in Table B.4 of IRC: 6. The
appropriate partial factor on materials shall be used. The base resistance capacity shall be
based on the crushing strength of rock with resistance factor of 4.5 for all combinations.
The contact area of base shall not be less than a minimum of 80% of the base for combinations
1 and 2 and 67% for seismic and accidental combinations. Linear pressure distribution shall be
assumed.
5.7 Verification of Serviceability Limit State

The differential settlement between the adjacent foundations shall be verified by using Quasi
permanent combination. The angular distortion of superstructure resulting on account of
differential settlement shall not exceed 1. in 400. The total settlement shall also be calculated as
specified under Clause 3.4.2 using IS 8009 part 2.
27
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
For calculation of base pressure the characteristic net side resistance shall be divided by 2.0 to
arrive at the design net side resistance. This reduced net side resistance shall be used in the
calculation. The partial factor on material shall be taken as 1.0 for this purpose.
The base contact area shall be 100% for foundations resting on soil and at least 80% for
foundations resting on rock under frequent combination of live load. The base pressure shall be
estimated under rare combination of loads. For foundations resting on rock, a factor of safety
of 7 on unconfined crushing strength of base rock shall be used to arrive at allowable base
pressure. For foundations resting on soil, a factor of safety of 2.0 on ultimate bearing capacity
shall be used. The bearing resistance. shall be restricted to 1.5 MPa.
5.8 Structural Design of Foundation

The structural design of foundation shall be carried out as per IRC:112 for all the combinations
as per Tables B.3 and B.4 of IRC:6. Due considerations shall be given to material safety factor
for geo-technical materials while computing the effects of geo technical forces.
5.9 Special Vehicle Loading
5.9.1 Verifications required

Verification of Equilibrium, base pressure and strength checks are required to be carried out
under ULS. Verification of base pressure and strength checks for rare combination of loads
under SLS shall also be carried out. The partial factor on SV loading, for combination 1 and
Equilibrium check shall be taken as 1.15 as per Clause 204.5.4 of IRC:6 for ULS verifications.
For verifications under combination 2 under ULS and rare combination under SLS, the partial
factor on SV loading shall be taken as 1.0.

All the relevant clauses for foundation shall be applicable for carrying out the verifications with
the following modifications:
1) The base resistance factor shall be taken as 1.20 for combination 1 and 1.0 for
combination 2 as against 1.35 and 1.10 mentioned in Clause 5.5 for arriving at the
allowable bearing resistance for foundations resting on soil.
2) Factor of safety of 6.0 shall be ensured as against 7.0 mentioned in Clause 5.7 for
arriving at the allowable bearing pressure while checking the base pressure under
rare combination of loads for foundation resting on rock. For foundation resting on
soil, the factor of safety of 1.6 shall be maintained with respect to ultimate bearing
resistance under rare combination of loads.
5.10 Other Provisions

Well foundations designed by the Limit State Approach given in this code need not be checked
using IRC: 45. Any provision not covered in this code shall be governed by provisions of Clause
708 of IRC: 78.
28
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Appendix–1
Explantory note
1. Limit State Design approach and design of open foundation
1.1 Introduction
This note gives the limit state approach adopted in Europe and explained how proposed draft
clauses have been framed. AASHTO LRFD Provisions and articles written by several authors
have also been taken into account consideration while drafting the code. ‘Pile foundation design
and construction practice’ by M.J Tomlinson and ‘Pile foundations analysis and design’ published
by H.G Poulos have also been followed. Some of the provisions of exisiting code have been
followed but converted to limit state approach. Design of foundations for SV loading also has
been included
It is explained, when combination 1+ partial factor on material set value1+ ground resistance
factor R1 has been mentioned, it should be interpreted as follows:
Use partial factor and combination of structural actions as mentioned for combination 1 in Table
B.4 of irc:6.
Calculate the geotechnical actions, reactions and ground resistances applying the partial safety
factor on geotechnical materials (to calculate the actions, reactions and resistances) shown
under set value1 given in Table 2 of the code.
The calculated geotechnical actions and reactions shall be further multiplied by respective
partial factors shown in Table B.4 of IRC:6 and combined with factored structural actions. The
calculated ground resistances shall be further divided by Ground resistance factor R1 to arrive
at the allowable ground resistance under this combination of structural and geotechnical actions.
Other combinations may be interpreted similarly.
1.2 Adoption of Partial factor on geo technical Material for Equilibrium Check
The current day practice is to adopt material safety factors both for soil and rock so that the
values obtained from lab or field tests (treating it characteristic strength,) the design strength is
obtained. This is similar to partial safety factor on concrete and reinforcement. The partial safety
factors for checking the equilibrium is different from the partial safety factors for designing the
foundation. These are given in Table 1 and Table 2 of the code.
1.3 Check for overturning and sliding
1.3.1
Check for overturning Partial Factor on Earth Pressure action = 1. 5 as per Table B.1
of IRC:6
Applying the material safety factor as given in Table 1 of the code Increase in Earth Pressure
1.12 times due to reduction in φ
Partial Factor on Stabilizing force = 0.9 as given in Table B.1 of IRC:6
29
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
FOS against overturning after taking into account the above factors is 1.5 x 1.12/0.9= 1.87 which
is approximately 2.0. Same as given in the present code
Resisting moment = 1.87 times overturning moment. In seismic condition the factor is 1.5/0.9
=1.67 times overturning moment greater than 1.5 as per our present code
1.3.2 Check for sliding

Hd ≤ Rd
Hd is the sliding force and Rd is the resisting force.
Partial factor on Earth pressure 1.50.
Increase in Earth Pressure as given above 1.12
Reduction in Tan δ value due to reduction in φ= 0.92
In the present code1.5 is the factor of safety against sliding. Resisting force required when
1.5 1.66
material safety factor 1.0 is adopted =
0.9 tan tanδ
Tan δ taken as 1.0 for comparison.
Factor against sliding =
If no geo technical action is involved then 1.5/0.9X0.92 =1.8 (seismic case).
In earth pressure case 1.5x1.12/0.9x0.92=2.02
ie 1.66 H ≤ V tan δ or 2.02 H ≤ V tan δ Increase level from present 1.5 1.10 1.30
1.4 Explanation to the pressure diagram

The pressure diagram shown is as per clause and commentary of 10.6.1.3, C.10.6.1.3, 10.6.1.4
and 11.6.3.2 of AASHTO LRFD 2012 edition and also as per the article “How to design structures
using Euro code 2 foundations” by R. Webster and O. Brooker Published by Concrete Center of
the UK. For foundations resting on soil, the principle is the centre of gravity of reduced effective
area is always concentrically loaded (i.e). The C.G of effective area and the location of applied
load should coincide (AASHTO) so that the foundation will have uniform pressure under ULS
condition.
This method is also given IS:6403. For foundations resting on rock triangular or trapezoidal
shape of diagram has been recommended. For SLS condition the pressure diagram will be
either triangular or trapezoidal for both these foundations as being followed at present. For
structural design of foundation the shape of diagram will always be linear. All recommendations
are from AASHTO LRFD and some recommended by several authors.
30
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
1.5 Discussion on Base contact area
A) Rectangular Foundation:
Table 1 Eccentricity V’s the base area in contact
Sl. e/B For Uniform Pressure distribution For Triangular Pressure distribution
No
Contact Max Base Contact Max Base
area in Pressure width of area in Pressure width in
percentage coefficient contact in percentage coefficient contact In
percentage percentage
1 0.10 80 1.25 80 100 1.60 100
2 0.15 70 1.43 70 100 1.90 100
3 0.166 67 1.49 67 100 2.0 100
4 0.20 60 1.66 60 90 2.22 90
5 0.23 54 1.85 54 81 2.47 81
6 0.25 50 2.0 50 75 2.66 75
7 0.33 34 2.94 34 51 3.92 51
B) Circular Foundation
Table 2 Eccentricity V’s the Base Area in Contact
Sl. e/d For uniform pressure distribution For Triangular Pressure distribution
No
Contact Max Base width Contact Max Base width
area in Pressure in contact area in Pressure in contact
percentage coefficient percentage percentage coefficient percentage
1 0.05 87 1.15 82
2 0.75 79 1.20 75
3 0.10 76 1.31 71
4 0.125 70 1.43 65 100 2.0 100
5 0.15 64 1.56 60 93 2.23 91
6 0.20 50 2.0 50 80 2.76 76
7 0.25 39 2.56 41 65 3.55 61.5
8 0.275 32 3.13 37 57 4.15 55.0
9 0.300 28 3.57 32 50 4.96 48.5
10 0.40 19 13.87 23.5
1.6 Fixation of Minimum allowable base contact area

To fix the minimum allowable area of base in contact, combination 2 under ULS which is a
critical condition and frequent combination under serviceability limit state have been taken up
with different Dead Load and Live load ratios to arrive at a conclusion. Dead load live load ratios
considered are 50:50 60:40 and 70:30. Combination 2 is chosen as it will be critical combination
for arriving at the size of foundation as it is similar to service load combination
31
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
A) Foundation resting on Soil Rectangular Footing:
Table 3 Base area in contact and base pressure
Description DL:LL 50:50 DL:LL 60:40 DL:LL 70:30
Combination Serviceability Combination Serviceability Combination Serviceability
2 limit state 2 limit state 2 limit state
frequent load frequent load frequent load
combination combination combination
Dead Load (Total 0.5P 0.5P 0.6P 0.6P 0.7P 0.7P
Load P)
Live Load 0.5 x 1.3P 0.65P 0..375P 0.52P 0.3P 0.39P 0.225P
0.4 x 1.3=0.52
0.3x1.3 =0.39
0.5 x 0.75=0.375
0.4 x 0.75=0.3
0.3 x 0.75-0.225
Total Load 1.15P 0.875P 1.12P 0.9P 1.09P 0.925P
Moment 1.3x1.25 1.625M 1.00M 1.625M 1.0M 1.625M 1.0M
xM
(PF x variation in
property
e= 1.41 (M/P) 1.14 (M/P) 1.45 (M/P) 1.11 (M/P) 1.49 (M/P) 1.08 (M/P)
Assume 50% base 50 - 50 - 50 -
contact at ULS
For this contact e 0.25B 0.25B 0.25B
= for rectangular
foundation
Corresponding e - 0.20B - 0.20B - 0.18B
for serviceability
limit state (0.25 x
1.14/1.41)
Corresponding - 90% - 90% - 96%
contact area at SLS
Maximum Pressure 2x1.15 = 2.30 2.22x0.875 = 2x1.12=2.24 2.22x0.9 = 2.0 2x1.09 = 2.18 2.08x92 =
1.94 1.924
(Maximum pressure 2.0 2.0 2.0
will be resisted with
a factor of safety 2.0
on ULS capacity
FOS at SLS 2x2.3 2x2.24 2x2.19
= 2.37 = 2.24 =2.28
1.94 2.0 1.924
Conclusion 50% contact at ULS will lead to 90% of contact at serviceability limit state.
FOS for bearing pressure ULS=2.0 FOS for bearing pressure at serviceability limit state not be less than 2.25
32
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(B) Foundations resting on soil – Circular footing
Table 4 Base area in contact and base pressure
Description DL:LL 50:50 DL:LL 60:40 DL:LL 70:30
Combination Serviceability Combination Serviceability Combination Serviceability
2 limit state 2 limit state 2 limit state
frequent load frequent load frequent load
combination combination combination
Circular Foundation
e for Circular 0.20d 0.20d 0.20d
foundation for 50%
contact
Base contact at ULS 50% 50% 50%
Corresponding for - 0.16d - 0.16d - 0.144d
serviceability limit
state
Corresponding base - 91 91 93
contact at SLS
Maximum 10% Loss of Contact of Base
Maximum base 2x1.15=2.30 2.33x8.75 2x1.12=2.24 233.09=2.09 2x1.09=2.18 2.23x925
pressure =2.04 =2.06
FOS at SLS 2x2.30/2.04 2x2.24/2.09 2x2.18/2.06
=2.25 =2.14 =2.12
FOS average will be 2.17
This proposal can be adopted (i.e) 50% contact at ULS to 90% contact at serviceability limit state
FOS at ULS 2.00 at SLS = 2.17
(C) Checking of Rectangular Foundation for Factor of Safety against Bearing Capacity for
Combination 1 and Rare Combination
Table 5 Checking of Rectangular Foundation for Factor of Safety against
Bearing Capacity for Combination 1 and Rare Combination
Description DL:LL 50:50 DL:LL 60:40 DL:LL 70:30 Remarks
Combination 1 Rare Combination
DL: LL Ratios Combination 1 Combination 1 Combination 1 Rare Rare Rare
50:50 60:40 70:30 Combination Combination Combination
50:50 60:40 70:30
Dead Load 0.675P 0.81P 0.945P 0.5P 0.6P 0.7P
(Total Load P)
Live Load 0.5 x 0.75P 0.60P 0.45P 0.50 0.4P 0.3P
1.5 P
Total Load 1.425P 1.41P 1.39P 1.0P 1.0P 1.0P
Moment 1.5M 1.5M 1.5M 1.5M 1.0M 1.0M 1.0M
e = M/P 1.5/1.42 x 1.063 1.07 1.0 1.0 1.0
M/P = 1.052
33
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
For 50% at ULS

e/B =e for comb 1.0.5/1.41 1.0.6/1.45 1.0.5/1.49
A1/A2xratio x .25 x .25 x .25
width of contact
of base
new e//B 0.186 0.182 0.180 0.177 0.172 0.168
Base % 63 63.70 64.11 96.76 98.82 99.41
CONTACT
Maximum 1.59 1.57 1.56 2.07 2.04 2.01
pressure
coefficient
Maximum 1.425 x 1.59 2.21 2.17 2.07 2.04 2.01

Pressure = 2.26
Factor of Safety 2 x 2.30 / 2 x 2.24 / 2 x 2.18 / 2 x 2.3 / 2.07 2 x 2.24 /2.04 2 x 2.18 /2.01
2.26 = 2.035 2.21 = 2.03 2.17 = 2.00 = 2.22 = 2.20 = 2.17
Conclusion: Combination 2 Combination 1 Rare Combination Frequent Combination

50 60 70 50 60 70 50 60 70 50 60 70
Ratio of DL:LL
50 40 30 50 40 30 50 40 30 50 40 30
Base Contact area 50 50 50 63 63.70 64.01 97 99 99.50 90 90 96
FOS against 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.04 2.03 2.0 2.22 2.20 2.17 2.37 2.20 2.28
bearing capacity
Note: Combination 2 is critical for size of foundation: Both for contact are and base pressure. If 2 is
satisfied all other combination will be automatically satisfied.
(D) Foundation Resting on Rock

Linear distribution to be adopted. Adopt 80% contact at SLS.
Table 6 Rectangular foundation. Triangular distribution – on Rock
Base area at SLS - 80% - 80% - 80%
Ratio ULS/SLS 1.23 - 1.30 - 1.38 -
e/b ratio 0.28 0.23 0.29 0.23 0.32 0.23
Base in contact 66 80 63 80 54 80
Revise base 0.277 0.225 0.277 0.220 0.277 0.200
Contact to 67% at ULS
e=
Base in contact both in ULS 67% 83% 67% 84% 67% 90%
and SLS
Max pressure 2.98x1.15 2.40x875 2.98x1.12 2.38x0.9 2.98x1.09 2.22x.925
=3.43 =2.10 =3.34 =2.14 =3.24 =2.04
FOS at ULS adopting FOS 7
in SLS 7x2.1/3.43 7 7x2.14/3.34 7 7x2.04/3.24 7
=4.3 =4.48 =4.40
34
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
FOR CIRCULAR 0.24 0.24/1.23 0.24 0.24/1.26 0.24 0.24/1.38

FOUNDATION = 0.195 =0.19 =0.174
e/d for Circular Foundation for
67% contact at ULS
% of base contact 67 80 67 83 67 87
Max pressure 3.39x1.15 2.76x0.875 3.39x1.12 2.65x0.9 3.39x1.09 2.5x0.925

=3.90 =2.41 =3.80 =2.38 =3.70 =2.317
FOS 4.3 7 4.38 7 4.35 7
For rock 67% contact at ULS will lead to More than 80% contact in service.
Based on the above calculation it is recommended to have the following % of contact of base.
Table 7 Recommendation of Base Contact Areas
Under ULS Under SLS

In Soil 50% 90%
I Rock 67% 80%
If shall be noted if we satisfy one condition the other condition will be automatically satisfied As
the limit state code is being put into use for the first time for foundations, after gaining confidence
SlS check for contact area and bearing pressure can be dispensed with at a latter stage.
1.7 Allowable Bearing Pressure

For calculation of allowable bearing pressure( resistance) the partial factor on material is to be
taken as 1.0 for combination 1, and accidental combination
Hence whatever the capacity is worked out shall be used. The average partial factor on action
will be approximately 1.45 in case of combination 1.
In order to be very close with the existing code provisions on factor of safety on bearing resistance,
a Resistance factor to the ground resistance can be further introduced. Using this provision by
introducing resistance factor 1.3, the FOS will workout ≈2.0. ( 1.45x1.3) for combination 1 and
1.3 for accidental combination.
For combination 2 and the seismic combination, the partial factor on material has to be used.
Hence the reduction in main contribution to bearing capacity is from Nq. For reduction in Nq
Refer sensitivity Table under the well foundation. It will be 60% after adopting partial factor on
material which will lead to factor of safety of 1.66. In order to have safety factor 2.0 the resistance
factor can be 1.30.for combination 2.
Hence the resistance factor 1.3 is recommended for the 3 combinations. (1, 2 and Accidental).
For seismic combination the factor will be 1.1 (1.66X1.1=1.8).
The size of footing will be governed by combination 2 and the structural design will govern by
combination 1.0.
This will ensure a factor safety of 2.25 on bearing capacity at serviceability limit against the ULS
capacity. In case of rock resistance factor of 4.5 shall be taken in all combinations
35
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
In case of Rock the factor of safety at ULS for combination 2 will be 6.3 (4.5x1.4) which will lead
to factor of safety at SLS more than 7.0 (Which are more are less same as the existing code)
1.8 Serviceability Limit State Check

The contact area requirement shall be satisfied using frequent combination. The bearing pressure
need to be checked under rare combination. The combination 2 represents almost serviceability
limit state. The factor of safety automatically will be 2.25 and for rock 7.0... Settlement calculation
if required has to be carried out using Quasi Permanent Combination and Partial safety factor on
material shall be taken as 1.0.
1.9 Final Recommendations

(a) For checking the equilibrium the material safety factor as suggested shall be adopted.
(b) Base in contact (Soil) At ULS 50%
At SLS 90%
Base in contact (Rock) At ULS 67%
At SLS 80%
(c) Ground Resistance factor for 3 combinations is 1.3 and for, Seismic Combination 1.1
FOS on ULS bearing capacity 2.0 and 2.25 in Serviceability Limit State for soil.
For rock a factor of safety of 4.5 at ULS will lead to FOS of 7 at SLS
(d) Serviceability Limit State
Bearing Pressure and base contact need be checked at Serviceability limit state. The
settlement if required can be calculated using Quasi or Semi Permanent Combination.
1.10 Factors for SV loading
1.10.1 Analysis of Safety factor on Soil for SV loading for 50% DL: LL ratios
A) Normal Case of loading
Partial factor on actions in combination 2 =(1+1.3)/2 = 1.15
Material Safety Resistance factor is taken 1.538 for all φ values
(PFAx GRx PFM)
Combination 2 total FOS: DL: LL 50:50 = 1.15 x 1.3 x 1.538 = 2.30
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.09 x 1.3 x 1.538 = 2.17
Average: 2.20
On Ground Strength FOS= 2.0
Partial factor on actions in combination 1= (1.35+1.5)/2 = 1.425
Combination 1 total FOS DL:LL 50:50 = 1.425 x 1.30 x 1.0 = 1.85

DL:LL 70:30 = 1.395 X 1.30 x 1.0 = 1.81
Average: 1.83
On Ground Strength FOS= 1.30
36
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
B) With S.V loading
For Combination 2 total FOS : 1.0 x 1.2 x 1.538 = 1.85, (1.85/2..2x100 = 84%)
on Ground strength = 1.85
For Combination 1 total FOS: DL: LL 50:50 = 1.25 x 1.2 x 1.0 = 1.5, (1.5/1.83x100 = 82%)
on Ground strength = 1.20
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.29 x 1.20 = 1.55, (85%)
For DL: LL 50:50 PFA = (1.35+1.15)/2 = 1.25
For DL: LL 70:30 PFA = (1.35 x 0.70 + 1.15 x 0.30) = 1.29
So adopt 1.2 for both the combinations for Sv loading for ground resistance
Analysis of safety factor for Rock Foundation for SV loading
Combination 2 for Normal loading: DL: LL 50:50 = 1.15 x 4.5 x 1.4 = 7.245
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.09 x 4.5 x 1.4 = 6.86 Average 7
For Combination 1 DL: LL 50:50 = 1.425 x 4.50 = 6.40
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.395 x 4.50 = 6.27 Average 6.35
Now with SV loading For Combination 2 = 1.0 x 4.5 x 1.4 (6.3) (90%)
For Combination 1 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.25 x 4.50 = 5.6
DL:LL 70:30 = 1.29 x 4.50 = 5.8
Hence retain resistance factor of 4.5 given for other loading for SV loading also
2. Design of Pile Foundation
2.1 Material Factor adopted for checking Equilibrium:

Values as given in Table 1
2.2 Partial factor on material for checking geotechnical capacity and Geo technical
actions
Partial factor on material set 1 and set 2 values as given in Table 2.
2.3 Ground Resistance Factor:

Use of partial factors for ground resistances have been suggested so that the load carrying
capacity of the pile is at least close to the capacity predicted by the existing code of practice and
should not show large variation.
The ground resistance factors have been adopted for action combination 1 and 2...The FOS for
combination 2 will work out to 2.0 with respect to ultimate carrying capacity.
For seismic combination and accidental combinations depending upon the situation. the partial
factor for ground resistance has been suggested.
37
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Table 1 Partial factor for ground resistance for shaft in compression
Component Symbol For bored and Driven Piles GRS for GRA for accidental Model Factor for
continuous Seismic combination bored and auger
auger Pile Combination pile and driven piles
GR1 GR2 GR1 GR2 For Vehicle Ship M
collision, Log Collision
Impact and barge
collision
For Base γb 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.40 1.25 1.40 1.2
resistance
For shaft γs 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.15 1.25 1.15 1.2
resistance
resistance
2.4 Model Factor (to be used in case shear parameters are used for estimation of
pile capacity)
Model factor to be used to estimate pile capacity using shear parameter in addition to ground
resistance factors.
When the pile capacity is calculated using the ground parameters and resistance factors, in
addition.
Model factor to be adopted to arrive at the pile capacity. Model factor has been chosen to
achieve the desired factor of safety. Factor of 1.2 has been suggested. The Model factor basically
increases the ground resistance factor for not taking into the characteristic property of material.
For computation of compressive and tensile resistance of the ground of piles, in vertical direction
partial factor on material set value 1 only be used in all combinations as adjustment of capacity
for various combinations has been taken care in the ground resistance factors suggested.
So factor of safety for combination 2 is 1.2 x 1.7=2.04 for bored and CFA Piles. Further taking
partial factor on action as 1.1 as an average value the FOS will be 2.24. For driven piles the FOS
will be 1.2 x 1.5 = 1.8. For seismic combination 25% overstressing is allowed as per present
code. Retaining the same concept FOS is 1.4x1.2=1.7. For ship impact same value is retained.
For other vehicle collisions 1.25 x1.2 =1.5 and for combination 1 is 1x1.2x1.4= 1.7. So The FOS
will be 2.04,1.7 and 1.5.
2.5 Methods of designing piles

The present code covers 5 methods for designing the pile. Same 5 methods are retained
and the euro code also covers these 5 methods. The methods are (1) calculation from shear
parameters (2) calculation from ground in situ profiles (3) direct load tests (4) dynamic tests (5)
pile driving formula.
For the first method the characteristic capacity is to be arrived using the formula and shear
parameters and to be divided by ground resistance factor and model factor to arrive at the
design resistance as explained in the previous para.
38
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Other methods are capacity from static load testing, ground in situ profiles and dynamic test and
using pile driving formula Correlation factors (weight age factors for methods) are to be used
instead of model factor when the capacity is computed using field in- situ tests. This correlations
factors convert the estiamated/ observed capacity of piles to characteristic capacity.
It is to be noted with the interest that correlation factors differ, for static pile load test, computation
from ground profiles and from dynamic methods. The numbers increase in same order. For
structures having sufficient strength and stiffness to transfer load from weak to strong piles the
values can be divided by 1.1 for piles in compression. Using this recommendation.
(a) From static pile load tests.
Table 2 Correlation factors
Correlation factors
Number of tests 1 2 3 4
On Mean Value 1.40 1.33 1.29 1.26
On Minimum Value 1.40 1.22 1.11 1.04
The factor safety will be on mean value: for single pile 1.70 x 1.40 = 2.38 and on the min value
also same.
For two pile testing: it will be 1.70 x 1.33 = 2.26 or1.70 x 1.22 = 2.07
For 3 pile testing: it will be 1.70 x 1.29 = 2.19 or 1.70 x 1.11 = 1.89
For 2 pile testing the FOS will be come 2.00 (approx.).
(b) For Ground Profile tests:
Table 3 correlation factors
Correlation factors
Number of tests 1 2 3 4 5
On Mean Value 1.40 1.33 1.29 1.26 1.24
On Minimum Value 1.40 1.26 1.2 1.17 1.14
Up to 3 locations the values are same.
FOS single location testing = 2.38 on mean value and min value
FOS for two locations testing = 1.33 x 1.70 = 2.21 on mean value
On minimum value = 1.26 x 1.70 = 2.14
FOS 3 location testing = 1.29 x 1.70 = 2.19 and 2.04
FOS 4 locations = 1.26 x 1.70 = 2.14 and 1.99
39
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(c) From Dynamic Tests
Table 4 Correlation Factors
Number of tests ≥2 ≥3 ≥ 10 ≥ 15 ≥ 20 Remarks

On Mean Value 1.94 1.85 1.83 1.82 1.81 Where signal matching is
On Minimum Value 1.90 1.76 1.70 1.67 1.66 done. The factors can be
multiplied by 0.85
Up to 10 locations the factors will vary from 3.30 to 3.1 on mean values.
and on minimum values = FOS 3.23 to 2.89
(d) Conclusions :
a. The FOS is not uniformly 2
b. The correlation factor Increase from static load test to Dynamic load tests which
indicate the reliability of the method.
Minimum 2 or 3 Pile static load test when conducted the FOS will be 2.00 and cannot get away
with single pile test For cone penetration test at least at 4 locations the cone penetration test
have to be conducted to achieve FOS 2.0.
Dynamic test results to be less reliable .The FOS will be higher varying from 3.30 to 3.1 on mean
value and 3.23 to 2.89 on Minimum value.
If Signal matching is done then this will be 2.80 to 2.63 on mean values and on min value 2.74
to 2.45.
The code wants the FOS to be 2.75 for this method.
2.6 Calculation of pile capacity for piles resting on rock and intermediate Geo-
Materials
Behavior of pile foundation resting on Rock
The load –penetration curve for rock of medium strength or less (≤ 100 MPa) has a large plastic
component despite the brittle nature of rock. The displacements required to mobilize the full
bearing capacity of such rocks are very large and that a factor safety of 3 or 4 is required
to limit the displacement to less than 2% of the diameter .Very brittle rocks (≥ 150 Mpa) do
not exhibit plastic load -penetration curve and once the maximum strength is exceeded at any
point in the brittle material total collapse occurs. Hence to limit the displacement, as such large
displacements cannot be achieved at the site, the serviceability limit state approach has been
suggested as a principal approach for design and verification by load tests. However only the
capacity of pile at the ultimate state is required to be verified
The allowable load on the pile under serviceability limit state shall be calculated from any of the
following methods
• By calculation using the ground parameters obtained from site investigation
• Directly from static load tests
40
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
For method (1) static load tests need to be performed for correlation of pile capacity obtained by
calculation. Both Poulos and Davis and M. J . Tomlinson recommend allowable load concept by
adopting suitable factor of safety on ultimate strength of rock. Hence in this code this methodology
is retained. The ground resistance factors are adjusted to suit the present code which means
the present code is converted to limit state approach in this draft. Piles have to be designed only
under ULS using ground resistance factor and model factor 1.15.The piles have to be designed
under rare combination of loads and load tested at site. The ground resistance factors for piles
on rock are as follows.
Table 5 Partial Factor for ground Resistance (γr)

Component Symbol For bored and GRS for GRA for Accidental
continuous augur Seismic Combination
flight piles
GR3 GR4 For Vehicle Ship
Impact and
barge collision
For Base resistance γs 1.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.9
For Socket resistance γs 3.0 4.8 3.9 3.0 3.9
For Combined resistance γt 1.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.9
FOS for combination A2 for end bearing 2.4x1.15 =2.76. For socket friction 4.8X1.15= 5.5
FOS for seismic combination and ship accidents for end bearing 1.9x1.15=2.2. For socket friction
3.9X1.15= 4.48
FOS for combination A1 and other accidental combinations for end bearing 1.5x1.15=1.7. For
socket friction 3.0X1.15= 3.45
2.7 Tensile resistance of pile foundation

For combinations 1and 2 the partial factors are shown below 2 have been adopted . Also
suggests model factor, .Our present code suggests a FOS of 3.0. Hence a model factor of 1.5
has been suggested so that under combination 2. a FOS of 3.0 is achieved (SLS Case).For
other combinations the resistance factor has been adjusted in the same principles as suggested
earlier for other cases
Table 6 Partial Factor for Resistance for Tension Piles in soil

Resistance Symbol GR5 For GR6 For GRS for GRA for Accidental Modal
combination combination Seismic Combination Factor
1 2
For Vehicle Ship
Impact and barge
collision
Shaft in γst 1.0 2.0 1.60 1.25 1.60 1.5
Tension
41
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
2.8 Routine load test
Routine load test for piles on soil shall be conducted to 1.5 times of rare combination of load and
settlement to be restricted to theoretical settlement calculated using shear parameters. For piles
seated on rock 1.0 time rare combination of load may be load tested
2.9 Piles subjected to lateral loads

Method suggested by Tomlinson ( BROMS method and Brinch Hansen’s method) has been
recommended. Poulos and Davis also suggest these methods for ULS verification. Use of
special software applicable for pile foundations has also been recommended.
For SLS condition using soil springs, Matlock and Reese method or equivalent cantilever method
has been recommended.
2.10 Factors for SV loading 2.10.1 Analysis on Partial safety factor for using SV
loading on piles foundation
A) Normal Loading : Factor of safety (Load 100% Resistance Ultimate)
1) Calculation of Pile FOS using shear parameters
MF x PFAXGR
Combination 1 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.2 x 1.425x1.0 = 1.71
DL:LL 70:30 = 1.20 x 1.395x1.0 = 1.67 (Average 1.69)
Ground Strength alone = 1.20
MF x PFAXGR
Combination 2 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.20 x 1.15 x 1.70 = 2.346
DL:LL 70:50 = 1.20 x 1.09 x 1.70 = 2.22
Ground strength alone 1.2 x 1.7 = 2.04
2) Calculation of piles FOS using ground test results

The factors are some because the modal factor and CR2 factor for 3 locations are same 1.20.
GR factor also remain same.
3) Calculation of pile FOS from static load test
Taking 3 static loads conducted
Combination 1 DL: LL 50:50 = 1.11 x 1.425 = 1.580
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.11 x 1.395 = 1.540
Combination 2 DL: LL 50:50 = 1.11 x 1.15 x 1.70 = 2.17

DL: LL 70:30 = 1.11 x 1.09 x 1.70 = 2.05
Ground strength alone 1.90
42
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4) Calculation of pile FOS from Dynamic tests
Taking tests conducted at two locations
Combination 1 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.50 x 1.425 = 2.13
DL:LL 70:30 = 1.50 x 1.395 = 2.09
Combination 2 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.50 x 1.15 x 1.70 = 2.93

DL:LL 70:30 = 1.50x 1.09 x 1.70 = 2.77
B) SV Loading Case
Reduce the ground resistance factor by 15% for combination 2
1) FOS using shear Parameters
Combination 1 DL: LL 50:50 = 1.20 x 1.250 = 1.50 (88%)
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.20 x 1.29 = 1.55 (95%)
On Ground strength alone 1.20
Partial factor on actions will work out to 1.35 minimum . Hence the factor will be above 1.6.
Combination 2 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.20 x 1.00 x 1.70 x0.85 = 1.73 (78%)

DL:LL 70:30 = 1.20 x 1.00 x 1.7 x 0.85 = 1.73 (78%)
2) FOS using ground test result: Value will be same as above

3) FOS using static test result:
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.11 x 1.290 = 1.43 (92%)
Ground Strength alone 1.11
Partial factor on actions will be more than 1.35.. Hence factor will be more than 1.6
Combination 2 DL:LL 50:50 = 1.11 x 1.0 x 1.7 x0. 85 = 1.60 (74%)

DL:LL 70:30 = 1.11 x 1.0 x 1.7 x0. 85 = 1.60 (78%)
4) FOS using Dynamic tests
DL: LL 70:30 = 1.50 x 1.29 = 1.94 (93%)
On Ground Strength 1.50
Combination 2 DL: LL 50:50 = 1.50 x 1.0 x 1.7 x 0.85 = 2.16 (74%)

DL: LL 70:30 = 1.50 x 1.0 x 1.75 x 0.85 = 2.16 (78%)
Factor of safety remains 1.60 and above for normal methods and for dynamic methods it will be
2.20.
43
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Target for normal methods is 2.0 for normal loading: 25% of over stressing when compared to
normal load. Hence 15% reduction for combination 2 can be accepted for ground resistance
factor.
3. Design of Well Foundations
3.1 Design approach for Well Foundations

Well foundations are covered using existing provisions of the present code. Hence present
IRC:78 has been followed. However the present code is converted into limit state approach so
that it is in line with other chapters. Moreover it has to follow the load combinations and partial
factors given in Table B.4 of IRC:6.
3.2 Limit State Verification of side and base Resistance

The side and base resistances of well foundation shall be verified for all the four combinations
outlined in Table B.4 of IRC:6-2017. These are the only two checks for well foundations required
3.3 Loads, Combinations, partial factor material set values and resistance factor
The principles of combination is as follows
combination 1 + Partial factor on material set value 1+ Resistance factor for base and side
combination 2 + Partial factor on material set value 2 + Resistance factor for base and side
Seismic combination + Partial factor on material set value 2 + Resistance factor for base and side
Accidental combination + Partial factor on material set value 2 + Resistance factor for base and side
Meaning of “+” combined with
3.4 Partial factor for Geo-technical Material

Two sets of partial factors are shown in Table 2 Viz set 1 and set 2.
The factors shown under Set 1 shall be used to check Action Combination 1 and factors shown
under set 2 shall be used for remaining combinations.
Table 1 Sensitivity Analysis Table for side resistance

In combination 1 side earth resistance will be almost fully utilized as shown below.
Value Actual Reduced FOS

For φ 25° (kp - ka) (3.91– 0.35) = 3.56 (3.91 – 0.35×1.5) = 3.39 1.05
Fφ φ = 30° (kp - ka) (5.74 – 0.30) = 5.44 (5.74 – 0.30×1.5) = 5.29 1.03
For φ = 35° (9.15– 0.22) = 8.92 (9.15 – 0.22×1.5) = 8.85 1.012
44
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
However this will not be governing case. The utilisation will be low in case of action combination
2. When action combination 2 is adopted side resistance factor of FOS is as follows.
Table 2 sensitivity table for side resistance
Actual Reduced FOS

For φ 25° (kp – ka) = (3.91 – 0.35) = 3.56 (2.89 x 0.85 – 0.42 x 1.3) = 1.91 1.86
For φ 30° (5.74 – 0.30) = 5.44 (3.85 x 0.85 – 0.35 x 1.3) = 2.82 1.93
For φ 35° (9.15 – 0.23) = 8.92 (5.4 x 0.85 – 0.29 x 1.3) = 4.21 2.11
The FOS requirement is 2.0 and 1.6 for normal and seismic combinations as per present code.
Adopting a side resistance factor of 1.0 for all combinations FOS will be 1.93 for combination 2.
For seismic combination and accidental combination FOS will be 1.55
3.5 Partial Factor on ground Resistance for foundations resting on soil

The partial factor for ground resistance is as given below. Partial resistance factor average for
actions in combination 1 shall be taken as 1.40. Take ground resistance factor as 1.35
Taking 1.4 as partial factor on loads in combination1 as average, the FOS on base resistance
will work to 1.4 x 1.35 = 1.90. Principle is, actions are factored, when partial factor on materials
are not applied
For combination 2 reduction in Nq, Nγ. Due to adoption of set 2 value.
Table 3 sensitivity table for base resisatance
φ Nq Nγ φ Nq Nγ Reduction Reduction
reduced in Nq in Nγ
25 10.66 10.88 20.5 6.4 5.39 60% 50%
30 18.40 22.40 25 10.66 10.88 58% 49%
35 33.30 48.05 29 16.8 20.0 50% 42%
Average reduction in Nq = 56% and in Nγ = 47%

As the depth factor dominate taking the bearing capacity reduced by 56% FOS will 1.78.
Hence ground resistance factor can be kept as 1.10. This will ensure FOS of 1.95 for combination 2.
For seismic and accidental combination partial factor on ground resistance can be kept as 1.0 as
the partial factor for seismic force is 1.5 which includes Hydrodynamic force also. The FOS for
seismic and accidental combinations will work out 1.78.
45
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.6 Summary of Resistance factor
TABLE 4
Summary of resistance factor are shown for all combinations
Combination Combination Combination Seismic Accidental

(1) (2) Combination Combination
Partial Factor to be used Set M1 Set M2 Set M2 Set M2
On Materials
Ground resistance factors 1.35 1.10 1.0 1.0
3.7 Verification of base resistance and base contact area for wells resisting on soil
The base pressure will be verified for all the combinations along with the appropriate partial
factor on material and partial factor on resistance. 80% of contact area of base shall be ensured.
Maximum base pressure of 2.5 MPa has been limited to
3.8 Verification of Base Resistance and base contact area for wells resting on rock
The base pressure will be verified for all the combinations. The partial factor on materials shall
be used for estimating Geo-technical actions and for resistance. The base resistance capacity
will be based the crushing strength of rock with resistance factor 4.5. The base contact area shall
be ensured a minimum of 80% and 67% for appropriate combinations.
3.9 Serviceability Limit State Verification

The differential settlement (angular distortion) of the foundation will be verified by using Quasi
permanent combination and the settlement will be restricted as given in Clause no. 5.1.4. . The
contact area should be 100% foundations resting on soil and 80% resting on rock with FOS
mentioned to be checked under frequent and rare combination. The allowable pressure on soil
and FOS has been stipulated i.e. 1.25 MPa and 2
3.10 Structural Design of Foundation

The structural design of foundation shall be carried out for all the combination as per IRC:112
46
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.11 Factors adjusted for SV loading
3.11.1 Analysis of partial safety factor on soil for SV loading for base resistance
A) Normal loading case
For Combination 1 DL:LL 50:50 = Total FOS= 1.425 x 1.35 x 1.0 = 1.92
DL:LL 70:30 = Total FOS =1.395 x 1.35 x 1.0 = 1.88
Fos on Soil = 1.35
For Combination 2 DL:LL 50:50 = Total FOS= 1.15 x 1.1 x 1.78 = 2.25
DL:LL 70:30 = Total FOS = 1.09 x 1.1 x 1.78 = 2.13
FOS on Soil = 1.96
B) With SV Loading Case

For Combination 1 DL:LL 50:50 = Total Fos = 1.25 x 1.20 x 1.0 = 1.50 (78%)
DL:LL 70:30 = Total Fos =1.29 x 1.20 x 1.0 = 1.55 (82%)
Fos on Soil = 1.20
For Combination 2 DL:LL 50:50 = Total Fos = 1.0 x 1.10 x 1.78 = 1.96 (89%)
DL:LL 70:30 = Total Fos = 1.0 x 1.10 x 1.78 = 1.96 (89%)
Fos on Soil = 1.96
Hence Resistance Factor of 1.20 and 1.1 can be taken. For SLS check the FOS shall be reduced
to 1.6 against ultimate bearing capacity while checking under rare combination. For Foundation
resting on Rock, base Resistance Factor of 4.5 is retained. Reference can be made to open
foundation calculation.
47
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Appendix–2
INTRODUCTION FOR THE WORKED OUT EXAMPLES
The foundation design presently is being carried out by using Allowable load method. In this
procedure the partial factor on Loads is taken as 1.0. The ultimate bearing capacity reduced by a
suitable factor of safety leads to allowable bearing capacity based on which the allowable loads
are calculated and compared. This procedure was followed by most of the countries in the past.
The British Code of Practice on foundation BS 8004 had followed this approach till 2009.
However, in the year 2004, the U.K. as well as other European countries switched over to
Limit state of design approach in which two level checks were proposed to check the safety
of foundation viz., ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state. The existing practice of
allowable load method for designing of foundations was discontinued from 2010 onwards.
Between 2004 and 2009 both approaches were retained. In order to be in line with universal
approach, the code of Practice of design of concrete bridges, steel bridges and Code of
Practice of design of bearings were revised to the Limit State Concept and published by IRC
during the past ten years. Hence it became absolutely necessary to revise IRC:78 code of
practice for design of foundations to suit the Limit State Concept. IRC:78 is being retained
which is based on allowable load method for some more time. This part of IRC:78 Part 2
will stipulate the design procedure for Limit State approach. Beside publishing the Code, it
was decided to add an explanatory note to the code and also worked out examples so that
the Engineers can understand easily the reasons behind the clauses while carrying out the
design calculations.
Basically the earlier concept of factor of safety appears on three forms in this Code. The partial
factor both on Geo-technical and structural loads, partial factor on Geo-technical material
similar to partial factor on steel and concrete and partial factor on ground resistance. Use of
partial factor on Geo-technical material to arrive at the design value from the characteristic
value of material is a new concept.
The worked out examples presented here, cover the design of open foundation, pile foundation
and pier well foundation resting on both on soil and rock. The design of open foundation covers
both cases with and without water table. The pile foundation design covers the conventional
method of designing the pile using the shear parameters. The existing method of design of
well foundation converted to Limit State approach has also been presented. Simultaneously
the same examples have been worked out using the design procedure being followed by the
present method. This procedure has been followed to calibrate the Limit State Code. Basically
these examples will show the design engineers the following aspects in details:
1) How to combine the loads for different load combinations;
2) How to apply partial factor on structural loads and on Geo-technical loads.
48
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3) How to apply partial factor on Geo-technical material for checking the stability,
to compute capacity of the supporting medium and further using the partial
factor for ground resistance, on the computed capacity of the supporting
medium, to arrive at the design ground resistance.
4) How to satisfy the different requirements of limits prescribed in the Code.
In order to show the amount of saving expected, parallel calculations by the existing, allowable
load method also has been presented. It is made very clear that whenever a new concept is
adopted, the results should not deviate very much from the current practice. This is specially
done in order to infuse confidence. Other countries have followed this approach. Hence similar
approach has been adopted here also.
49
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
1. Example on Open Foundation by Working Stress Method as per
Present IRC:78 and by Limit State Method
1.0 Input Data and Load Calculations
The overall width of the deck is 17.0m (with 16m wide carriage way). The superstructure
comprises of three spans continuous (deck continuity only) precast pretensioned girder with
cast in-situ RCC deck slab. POT-PTFE bearings under superstructure are supported on RCC
rectangular cap which is supported on circular pier. In this example we design the foundation of
Anchor pier using Working stress method and limit state method for different cases.
1.1 Salient Data:
Right Span on the pier = 27.024 m

Left Span on the pier = 27.025 m
Radius of curvature = 500 m
Total width of the Bridge = 17.000 m
Total carriageway & footpath if considered = 16.000 m
Finished Road Level (FRL) = 250.424 m (For tallest pier)
Bearing level = 248.009 m
Pier cap top level = 247.509 m
Depth of pier cap = 2.000 m
Pier top level = 245.509 m
Ground level = 243.226 m
Earth cushion below ground level = 1.200 m
Pier bottom level = 242.026 m
Foundation Level = 239.726 m
Clear height of Pier = 3.483 m
FRL to Foundation = 10.70 m
Avg Expose height for wind load calculations (Plain Terrain) = 12.00 m
Dia for Circular Pier = 2.5 m
In case of curved span, the C. G of superstructure is not in line with the centerline alignment
therefore eccentricity due to curvature has to be taken into account.
Eccentricity 0.12 0.12 m
(a): Centrifugal Force
Centrifugal force = W.V2/127R
where,
W is the wt. on pier
V is the speed of vehicle
R is the radius of curvature
Horizontal force on a pier in normal condition:
Applied horizontal force on both the spans: As per Clause 211.5.2 of IRC:6-2017,
Force on fixed bearing = Fh - µ*(R + L) OR Fh/(1+ΣnR,L) + µ*(R - L)
50
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Total horizantal force due to Braking force:
With Class 70RW+2L Class A Fh = 42.44 t FX
Number of supports to the Right of Fixed Pier 3

Number of support to the Left of Fixed Pier 1
Reaction to the Right of Fixed Reaction to the Left of Fixed
Bearing Bearing
Dead Load 1155.00 385.000
SIDL 67.50 22.50
Surfacing 135.00 45.00
Live Load* 337.28 0.00
Coeff of Friction (µ) 0.05 0.03
Frictional Force 84.74 13.58
*{4 lane of class A (=(55.4*1+50)*4*.8)
Considered conservatively}
µL = 13.58 t
µR = 84.74 t With Live load case
µR = 67.88 t Without Live load Case
nR = 2
nL = 1
Horizontal force = 92.38 t With Live load case (on conservative side we
on a bearing take min of ηR & ηL)
Fig. 1 Typical Cross section in Transverse Direction
51
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
b: Buoyant force due to pier & foundation:
(Typical calculations)
As per Clause 213 of IRC:6-2017,
Weight of foundation = 885.5 t

Weight of Soil = 357.8 t
Weight of Pier up to GL = 5.9 t
Density of water = 1.00 t/m3
Assuming Water level is at Ground level.
Buoyant force due to foundation = 354.2 t

Buoyant force due to Soil = 178.9 t
Buoyant force due to Pier = 5.9 t
Buoyant force due to Pier Cap = 0.0 t
Therefore, total buoyant force = 539.0 t
1.2 CALCULATION OF LOAD
Length of Foundation (in longitudinal Dir.) L = 14.00 m

Width of Foundation (in Transverse Dir.) B = 11.00 m
Depth of Footing = 2.30 m
Gross area of footing = 154 m2
Section modulus in longitudinal direction, ZL = 359.33 m3
Section modulus in transverse direction, ZT = 282.33 m3
Therefore, total buoyant force = 539.0 t
1.2.i Loads from superstructure:
Type of load
Right Span Left Span Long. Moment Trans. Moment
(t) (t) ( tm ) ( tm )
Dead load 385.00 385.00 0.00 93.74
SIDL 22.50 22.50 0.00 5.48
Surfacing 45.00 45.00 0.00 10.96
FPLL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LL (Max. Vcase) 65.34 83.04 96.00 349.71
1.2.ii Loads from substructure:
Weight of pier cap = 140.00 t

Weight of pier = 42.92 t
Depth of earth cushion = 1.20 m
Density of cushion = 2.00 t/m3
Weight of earth cushion = 357.77 t
52
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Weight of Foundation = 885.50 t

Weight of Foundation & cushion = 1243.27 t
C.G. of Footing & Cushion from Foundation Levels = 1.7 m
2.iii) CALCULATION OF SEISMIC FORCES-
CALCULATION OF SEISMIC COEFFICIENT

SEISMIC ZONE = III
LONGITUDINAL SEISMIC COEFFICIENT
Zone factor for seismic zone III, Z = 0.16
Sa/g = 2.500
Importance Factor, I = 1.2
Response Reduction Factor, R = 3.00
Ah = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.080 0.080 say
TRANSVERSE SEISMIC COEFFICIENT
Ah = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.080 0.080 say
VERTICAL SEISMIC COEFFICIENT = 0.000 0.000 say
HORIZONTAL FORCES (BRAKING AND BEARING FRICTION)
* For seismic load calculations, consider only 20% LL 0.20
With POT-PTFE
Reaction to the Right Reaction to the Left of

of Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing
Dead Load 1155.00 385.00
SIDL 67.50 22.50
Surfacing 135.00 45.00
Live Load 84.32 0.00
Coeff of Friction (µ) 0.05 0.03
Frictional Force 72.09 13.58
The structure under the fixed bearing shall be designed to withstand the full seismic and design
braking/tractive force.
Seismic Longitudinal Case
With POT-PTFE
Braking force 8.49 t

No. of spans fixed to the pier 3
Seismic force on superstructure 217.20 t
Total horizontal force on superstructure 225.69 t
Frictional force on fixed bearing Fh/(1+ΣnR,L) + µ*(R - L) 171.36 t
or Fh 225.69
Thus, max force on a pier 225.69 t
53
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
IN LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION
LONGITUDINAL SESMIC FORCE Force Lever arm Moment

DUE TO (t) (m) (tm)
Superstructure 225.69 8.28 1869.39
Pier cap 11.20 6.91 77.43
Pier 3.43 4.04 13.88
Footing & Cushion 99.46 1.65 164.47
Total longitudinal Seismic force 339.78 2125.17
IN TRANSVERSE DIRECTION
TRANSVERSE SESMIC FORCE Force (t) Lever arm Moment

DUE TO (m) (tm)
Live Load (Horizontal) at 1.2 above 2.37 11.90 28.25
FRL
Dead Load (Right span) 30.80 10.06 309.77
Dead Load (Left span) 30.80 10.06 309.77
Surfacing 7.20 10.70 77.03
SIDL 3.60 11.20 40.31
Pier Cap 11.20 6.91 77.43
Pier 3.43 4.04 13.88
Footing 99.46 1.65 164.47
Total transverse Seismic force 188.87 1020.90
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC FORCES & ITS MOMENT

Force Moment
(t) (tm)
Transverse Direction 188.87 1020.90
Longitudinal Direction 339.78 2125.17
Vertical Direction 0.00 -
54
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
1.2.iv CALCULATION OF FORCES DUE TO WIND - WITH LIVE LOAD
I WIND FORCE ON SUPERSTRUCTURE (As per Clause 209.3 of IRC:6-2017)
Basic wind speed (Vb) (As per Fig.10) 41.89 m/s

H (avg. ht. of exposed surface from the ground level) 12.00 m
From table 12
VZ (hourly mean speed of wind at height H) 28.36 m/s
PZ (horizontal wind pressure at height H) 483.22 N/m2
Since table 12 is for basic wind speed (Vb) of 33 m/s
So, for Vb of 41.89 m/s 0m/s
VZ calculated 36.0 m/s
PZ calculated 778.6 N/m2
In hilly areas due to funneling, PZ is increased by 20% 778.6 N/m2
As per Clause 209.3.3

Transverse wind force FT (in N) = PZ x A1 x G x CD eq. 1
Here,
A1 is the area of the superstructure as seen in elevation including the floor system and railing
Height of left 27.025m span including height of crash barrier, d = 3.500 m
Height of right 27.024m span including height of crash = 3.500 m
barrier, d
So, Area A1 at which FT is acting (left 27.025m Span) = 3.500 m2/m
So, Area A1 at which FT is acting (right 27.024m Span) = 3.500 m2/m
G is the gust factor (spans up to 150 m) = 2
CD is the drag coefficient
width of deck (b) = 17.0 m
b/d = 4.86 m
For bridge decks supported by single beam, CD (For above = 1.36
b/d ratio)
For bridge deck supported by two or more beams, CD = 2.04 (1.5 times
single beam)
Putting all these values in eq.1
FT calculated 27.025m Span = 11095.639 N/m
27.024m Span = 11095.639 N/m
FT (For left 27.025 m span) = 30.57 t

FT (For right 27.024 m span) = 30.57 t
Long. Force on superstructure FL (25% of FT) (As per Clause = 7.64 t
209.3.4) (1 ,27.025 m span)
Long. Force on superstructure FL (25% of FT) (As per Clause 15.28 t
209.3.4) (2,27.024 m span)
55
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Upward or downward vertical wind load FV (in N) (As per Clause = PZ x A3 x G x CL eq.2
209.3.5)
Here,
So, Area A3 at which FT is acting (left 27.025m Span) = 17.0 m2/m
So, Area A3 at which FT is acting (right 27.024m Span) = 17.0 m2/m
Width of deck = 17.00 m
CL is the lift coefficient = 0.75
Other parameters PZ and G remains same as used above
Putting all these values in eq.2,
FV(+/-) left 27.025mSpan = 19855.354 N/m

right 27.024m Span = 19855.354 N/m
FV (For left 27.025 m span) = 54.70 t
FV (For right 27.024 m span) = 54.70 t
II WIND FORCE ON LIVE LOAD
Since hourly mean speed of wind (VZ) is 36m/s, so wind forces need to be considered on live
load (As per Clause 209.3.7)
Transverse wind force FT (in N) = PZxA3xGxCD eq.3
(acting at a ht. of 3m above roadway)
Height of crash barrier above roadway = 1.10 m
Net ht. at which FT is acting = 1.90 m
So Area (L x ht. at which FT is acting) = 1.90 m2/m
Drag coefficient, CD = 1.20 (As per
Clause
209.3.6)
Putting these values in eq.3, FT calculated = 3550.60 N/m
= 0.36 t/m
FT (For 27.025 m span) = 9.78 t
FT (For 27.024 m span) = 9.78 t
209.3.4) (1, Left 27.025m span)
209.3.4) (2, Right 27.024m span)
IN LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION
With POT-PTFE
Braking force = 42.44 t
Wind force on superstructure = 22.92 t
Wind force on LL = 7.34 t
Total long. Force = 72.70 t
56
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Frictional force on fixed bearing Fh - µ*(R + L) = -25.61 t

or Fh/(1+ΣnR,L) + µ*(R-L) = 107.51 t
or Fh = 72.70 t
Total force on a pier 107.51 t
Thus, max force on a pier = 107.51 t
LONGITUDINAL WIND FORCE Force (t) Lever arm (m) Moment (tm)
Horizontal Force 107.51 8.28 890.55
on Pier cap 0.50 6.78 3.36
on Pier 0.21 4.04 0.84
Total longitudinal Wind force 108.22 894.75
IN TRANSVERSE DIRECTION
TRANSVERSE WIND FORCE DUE TO Force (t) Lever arm (m) Moment (tm)
Live Load 9.78 12.75 124.69
Superstructure (27.025 m span) 15.28 10.05 153.57
Superstructure (27.024 m span) 15.28 10.05 153.56
Pier cap 1.98 6.78 13.438
Pier 0.83 4.04 3.352
Total transverse Wind force 43.16 448.61
SUMMARY OF WIND FORCES & ITS MOMENT
Force (t) Moment (tm)

Vertical Direction (+/-) 54.70 -
2.0 Prob 1 - Foundation Resting on Soil with Water Table at Ground Level
(Ah & At = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.08)
Length 14.00
Width 11.00 longitudinal Direction
Fig. 2 Plan of Footing
Area of foundation (Agross) = 154.00 m2

57
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Summary of Forces of structure without any factor-
For forces refer input data and load calculations (Buoyant & seismic force and footing wt.
can be changed depending upon size of footing)
S.No. Particular V HT HL MT ML
(t) (t) (t) (tm) (tm)
1 DEAD LOAD 770.00 - - 93.74 0.00
2 Surfacing 90.00 - - 10.96 0.00
3 SIDL 45.00 - - 5.48 0.00
4 FPLL 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00
5 LL (Max. V case) 148.38 9.87 - 349.71 96.00
6 Pier cap 140.00 - - - -
7 Pier 42.92 - - - -
8 Footing & cushion 1243.27 - - - -
9 Buoyant force 539.00 - - - -
10(a) Horizontal force Basic - - 92.38 - 765.22
(Live Load case)
10(b) Horizontal force Basic - - 54.30 - 449.77
(No Live load case)
10(c) Seismic Force 0.00 188.87 339.78 1020.90 2125.17
10(d) Wind Force with LL Case 54.70 43.16 108.22 448.61 894.75
(While Calculating factored force in seismic longitudinal direction, 30% of seismic vertical and seismic
transverse force are also considered.)
2.1 Geo-Technical Design of Foundations using Working Stress Method-

σv (t/m2) = Bearing pressure from trapezoidal pr. Distributions in WSM
Max. Base Pressure (P/A+ML/ZL+MT/ZT)
Min. Base Pressure (P/A-ML/ZL-MT/ZT)
Partial Safety factors
As Per IRC: 78
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00 1.00 0.20
Wind 0.00 1.00 0.00
Seismic 0.00 0.00 1.00
Bouyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00
58
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
i) Basic load combination (LC-1)-
LC-1
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind -
Seismic -
Bouyancy 1.00
σv (t/m2)
V (t) HT (t) HL (t) MT (t-m) ML (t-m) Max Min
Factored load
1941 10 92 460 861 16.6 8.6
ii) Basic combination with Wind (LC-2)-

LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind 1.00
Seismic -
Bouyancy 1.00
σv (t/m2)
+ 1995 53 108 908 991 18.9 7.0
Factored load
- 1886 53 108 908 991 18.2 6.3
+ means Wind downward & - means Wind Upward
iii) Seismic Combination (LC-3)-
LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 0.20
Wind -
*Seismic 1.35 *Seismic force are multiply by 1.35 as per
Buoyancy 1.00 Clause 219.8 of IRC: 6-2017
σv (t/m2)
Factored load
1822 78 459 594 2888 22.0 1.7
59
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Summary of bearing pressure from WSM-
i) Min Pressure = 1.69 t/m2 >0 , Full contact of base, Safe
ii) Max base Pressure (Cl 706.3.3.1 of IRC:78-2014)
Basic = 16.6 t/m2 ≤ 48.52 /2.5 = 19.408 t/sq-m, Safe
Wind = 18.9 t/m2 ≤ 48.52* 1.25/2.5 = 24.26 t/sq-m, Safe
Seismic = 22.0 t/m2 ≤ 48.52* 1.25/2.5 = 24.26 t/sq-m, Safe
Ultimate bearing capacity = 48.52 t/m2
2.2 Geo-Technical Design of Foundations using Limit State-

Table B.4 (IRC: 6-2017) Table B.3 (IRC: 6-2017)

LC-1 LC-2 LC-3 LC-4 LC-5A, LC-6 LC-7 LC-8 LC-9 LC-10
5B
Combination-1 Combination-2 Seismic Frequent Rare Quasi
LL Wind LL Wind - LL Wind LL Wind -
Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.35,1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.75,1 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
LL & FPLL Load 1.50 1.15 1.30 1.00 0.20 0.75 0.20 1.00 0.75 0.00
Wind 0.90 1.50 0.80 1.30 - 0.50 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.00
Seismic - - - - 1.50 - - - - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.2.1 Serviceability Limit State -

(As per Clause 3.4 Verification of serviceability Limit State)-
σv (t/m2) = Bearing pressure from trapezoidal pr. Distributions for SLS check-
i) Check for Loss of contact-
Frequent Combination LC-6 LC-7
Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
LL & FPLL Load 0.75 0.20
Wind 0.50 0.60
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
60
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
σv (t/m2)
Factored load V (t) HT (t) HL (t) MT (t-m) ML (t-m) Max Min Aeff (m2)
LC-6 + 1949 29 81 599 743 16.8 8.5 154.0
- 1894 29 81 599 743 16.5 8.1 154.0
LC-7 + 1873 28 65 451 556 15.3 9.0 154.0
- 1807 28 65 451 556 14.9 8.6 154.0
Area of foundation (Agross)
= 154.0 m2
Min % contact area = Aeff/ AGross
= 100.0% ≥ 90 % Safe (As per Limit State Code)
ii) Check for Base Pressure-
Rare Combination LC-8 LC-9
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.60 1.00
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
σv (t/m2)
Factored load V (t) HT (t) HL (t) MT (t-m) ML (t-m) Max Min
+ 1991 36 108 731 991 18.3 7.6
LC-8
- 1926 36 108 731 991 17.9 7.2
+ 1976 51 108 823 967 18.4 7.2
LC-9
- 1867 51 108 823 967 17.7 6.5

ZL of footing (L2B/6) = 359.3 m3
ZT of footing (B2L/6) = 282.3 m3
Max. Base Pressure (P/A+ML/ZL+MT/ZT) = 18.4 t/m2
Min. Base Pressure (P/A-ML/ZL-MT/ZT) = 6.5 t/m2 ≤ 21.56 t/sq-m, Safe
(As per Limit State Code)
Max base pressure is = 18.4 t/m2

Design Ultimate bearing capacity (48.52/2.25) = 21.6 t/m2
61
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
iii) Check for Settlement-
LC-10
Quasi
-
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.20
LL & FPLL Load 0.00
Wind 0.00
Seismic -
Bouyancy 1.00
σv (t/m2)
1810 0 54 112 450 13.4 10.1
Area of foundation = 154.0 m2

Min. Base Pressure (P/A-ML/ZL-MT/ZT) = 10.1 t/m2
Settlement to be calculated using = 13.4 t/m2
2.2.2 Ultimate limit state -

σv (t/m2) = Bearing pressure from uniform pr. Distributions in ULS Check.
Aeff = Effective area of contact {(L-2eL)*(B-2eB)}.
A) Loss of equilibrium-
Overturning, Overall stability and sliding of foundation are carried out under in this
clause.
Generally for pier this check is not required.
B) As per Clause 3.2 Verification for Bearing Resistance-
i) Load Combination 1
LC-1 LC-2
Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35
Surfacing 1.75 1.75
Wind 0.90 1.50
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
62
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
HT HL MT ML eL eT Aeff
Factored load V (t) % Aeff σv (t/m2)
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m) (m) (m) (m2)
+ 2916 54 162 1081 1486 0.510 0.371 133.2 86.5% 21.90
LC-1
- 2817 54 162 1081 1486 0.527 0.384 132.5 86.0% 21.27
+ 2897 76 162 1228 1453 0.501 0.424 131.9 85.7% 21.95
LC-2
- 2733 76 162 1228 1453 0.532 0.449 130.7 84.9% 20.91
Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 22.0 t/m2 ≤ 36.12 t/sq-m, Safe

Min % Effective Contact Area = 84.86 % ≥ 50 % Safe
Characteristic Ultimate bearing capacity = 46.95 t/m 2
Design Ultimate bearing capacity (46.95 /1.3) = 36.12 t/m2

ii) Load Combination 2
LC-3 LC-4
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00
Wind 0.80 1.30
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
HT HL MT ML eL eT Aeff
Factored load V (t) % Aeff σv (t/m2)
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m) (m) (m) (m2)
+ 2029 47 141 924 1288 0.635 0.455 128.4 83.4% 15.80
LC-3
- 1941 47 141 924 1288 0.663 0.476 127.3 82.7% 15.24
+ 2012 66 141 1043 1259 0.626 0.519 127.0 82.5% 15.84
LC-4
- 1869 66 141 1043 1259 0.674 0.558 125.1 81.2% 14.95

Min % Effective Contact Area = 81.21 % 50 %, Safe
Characteristic Ultimate bearing capacity = 29.86 t/m2
63
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
iii) Seismic Combination-
LC-5A LC-5B
Seismic
DL Adding DL Rev.
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.00
Wind - -
Seismic 1.50 1.50
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
V' HT' HL' MT’ ML’

(t) (t) t) (t-m) (t-m)
Factored load
- - Seismic non - Seismic non
Seismic Seismic
LC-5A 2674 87 510 0 682 3188 19
LC-5B 1822 87 510 0 640 3188 19
As the plastic moment is dependent on sectional capacity. It is assumed that section is designed
for the exact requirement. Hence the seismic moment and shear at the base is multiplied by over
strength factor to simplify the process.
Plastic hinge can form either in longitudinal direction or transverse direction. In this case we
assume that plastic hinge is form in longitudinal direction. So, over strength Factors not apply
on V, HT & MT.
Factored load after applying Overstrength Factor of 1.35 in HL & ML -
V HT HL MT ML eL (m) eT (m) Aeff % Aeff σv

Factored load
(t) (t) (t) (t-m) (t-m) (m2) (t/m2)
LC-5A 2674 87 688 682 4329 1.619 0.255 112.9 73.3% 23.69
LC-5B 1822 87 688 640 4329 2.376 0.351 95.2 61.8% 19.13
(HL & ML) = (HL' & ML' )* 1.35
(V, HT & MT) = (V', HT' & MT')
LC-5A Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 23.7 t/m2 ≤ 26.93 t/sq-m, Safe
LC-5B Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 19.1 t/m2 ≤ 26.15 t/sq-m, Safe
Min % Effective Contact Area = 61.84 % ≥50 % Safe

LC-5A LC-5B
Characteristic Ultimate bearing capacity = 29.62 28.77 t/m2
Design Ultimate bearing capacity (29.62 = 26.93 26.15 t/m2
/1.1) & (28.77 /1.1)
64
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
2.3 Summary of WSM & LSM-
Loss of contact Base pressure Check

Design
Allowable Maximum
Contact ultimate
Description of contact base
Method area of Status bearing Status
load case area of pressure
base capacity
base (t/m2)
(t/m2)
Basic 16.63 19.41 Safe
Working State Method Wind 100% 100% Safe 18.93 24.26 Safe
Seismic 21.97 24.26 Safe
Frequent 100% 90% Safe - - -
SLS
Rare - - - 18.44 21.56 Safe
Load
85% 50% Safe 21.95 36.12 Safe
Limit State combination-1
Method- Load
ULS 81% 50% Safe 15.84 22.97 Safe
combination-2
Seismic
62% 50% Safe 23.69 26.93 Safe
Combination
3.0 Prob 2 - Foundation Resting on Soil with no Water Table

(Ah & At = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.08)
Length 14.00

S. No. Particular V HT HL MT ML
(t) (t) (t) (tm) (tm)
1 DEAD LOAD 770.00 - - 93.74 0.00
2 Surfacing 90.00 - - 10.96 0.00
3 SIDL 45.00 - - 5.48 0.00
4 FPLL 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00
5 LL (Max. V case) 148.38 9.87 - 349.71 96.00
65
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(t) (t) (t) (tm) (tm)
6 Pier cap 140.00 - - - -
7 Pier 42.92 - - - -
10 (a) Horizontal force Basic (Live - - 92.38 - 765.22
Load case)
10 (b) Horizontal force Basic (No - - 54.30 - 449.77
Live load case)
10 (c) Seismic Force 0.00 188.87 339.78 1020.90 2125.17
10 (d) Wind Force with LL Case 54.70 43.16 108.22 448.61 894.75
(While Calculating factored force in seismic longitudinal direction, 30% of seismic vertical and
seismic transverse force are also considered.)

As Per IRC: 78
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00 1.00 0.20
Wind 0.00 1.00 0.00
Seismic 0.00 0.00 1.00
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00
LC-1
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind -
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
66
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
σv (t/m2)
Factored load
2480 10 92 460 861 20.1 12.1
LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind 1.00
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
σv (t/m2)
+ 2534 53 108 908 991 22.4 10.5
Factored load
- 2425 53 108 908 991 21.7 9.8
LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 0.20
Wind -
*Seismic 1.35 *Seismic force are multiply by 1.35 as per
Clause 219.8 of IRC: 6-2017
Buoyancy 1.00
σv (t/m2)
Factored load
2361 78 459 594 2888 25.5 5.2
i) Min Pressure = 5.19 t/m2 >0, Full contact of base, Safe
ii) Max base Pressure (Cl 706.3.3.1 of IRC:78-2014)
Basic = 20.1 t/m ≤ 97.04 /2.5 = 38.816 t/sq-m, Safe
2
Wind = 22.4 t/m2 ≤ 97.04* 1.25/2.5 = 48.52 t/sq-m, Safe

Seismic = 25.5 t/m2 ≤ 97.04* 1.25/2.5 = 48.52 t/sq-m, Safe
67
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

LC-1 LC-2 LC-3 LC-4 LC-5A, 5B LC-6 LC-7 LC-8 LC-9 LC-10
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.35,1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.75,1 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
LL & FPLL 1.50 1.15 1.30 1.00 0.20 0.75 0.20 1.00 0.75 0.00
Load
Wind 0.90 1.50 0.80 1.30 - 0.50 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.00
Seismic - - - - 1.50 - - - - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.50 0.60
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
σv (t/m2)
Factored load V (t) HT (t) HL (t) MT (t-m) ML (t-m) Max Min Aeff (m2)
+ 2488 29 81 599 743 20.3 12.0 154.0
LC-6
- 2433 29 81 599 743 20.0 11.6 154.0
+ 2412 28 65 451 556 18.8 12.5 154.0
LC-7
- 2346 28 65 451 556 18.4 12.1 154.0
Min % contact area = Aeff/ AGross
= 100.0% ≥ 90 % Safe (As per Limit State Code)
68
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.60 1.00
Seismic - -
Bouyancy 1.00 1.00
σv (t/m2)
+ 2530 36 108 731 991 21.8 11.1
LC-8
- 2465 36 108 731 991 21.4 10.7
+ 2515 51 108 823 967 21.9 10.7
LC-9
- 2406 51 108 823 967 21.2 10.0

Max base pressure is = 21.9 t/m2 ≤ 43.13 t/sq-m, Safe

Ultimate bearing capacity = 97.04 t/m 2

LC-10
Quasi
-
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.20
LL & FPLL Load 0.00
Wind 0.00
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
69
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
σv (t/m2)
Factored load
2349 0 54 112 450 16.9 13.6
Area of foundation = 154.0 m2


σv (t/m2) = Bearing pressure from uniform pr. Distributions in ULS Check.
Aeff = Effective area of contact {(L-2eL)*(B-2eB)}.
Overturning, Overall stability and sliding of foundation are carried out under in this Clause.
Generally, for pier this check is not required.
LC-1 LC-2
Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35
Surfacing 1.75 1.75
Wind 0.90 1.50
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
MT ML eL eT Aeff σv
Factored load V (t) HT (t) HL (t) % Aeff
(t-m) (t-m) (m) (m) (m2) (t/m2)
+ 3455 54 162 1081 1486 0.430 0.313 136.3 88.5% 25.35
LC-1
- 3356 54 162 1081 1486 0.443 0.322 135.8 88.2% 24.71
+ 3436 76 162 1228 1453 0.423 0.357 135.3 87.9% 25.39
LC-2
- 3272 76 162 1228 1453 0.444 0.375 134.4 87.3% 24.35

70
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

Design Ultimate bearing capacity (94.39 /1.3) = = 72.61 t/m2

LC-3 LC-4
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00
Wind 0.80 1.30
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
V (t) HT (t) HL (t) MT ML eL eT Aeff % Aeff σv (t/

Factored load
(t-m) (t-m) (m) (m) (m2) m 2)
+ 2568 47 141 924 1288 0.502 0.360 133.6 86.8% 19.22
LC-3
- 2480 47 141 924 1288 0.519 0.372 132.9 86.3% 18.66
+ 2551 66 141 1043 1259 0.494 0.409 132.5 86.0% 19.25
LC-4
- 2408 66 141 1043 1259 0.523 0.433 131.3 85.2% 18.35


LC-5A LC-5B
Seismic
DL Adding DL Rev.
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.00
Wind - -
Seismic 1.50 1.50
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
71
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
V' (t) HT' (t) HL' (t) MT' (t-m) ML’ (t-m)
Factored load - - Seismic non - Seismic non
Seismic Seismic
LC-5A 3213 87 510 0 682 19 3188
LC-5B 2361 87 510 0 640 19 3188
strengthfactor to simplify the process.
Factored load V (t)

HT HL MT ML eL eT Aeff % Aeff σv (t/m2)
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m) (m) (m) (m2)
LC-5A 3213 87 688 682 4329 1.348 0.212 119.6 77.63% 26.87
LC-5B 2361 87 688 640 4329 1.834 0.271 108.1 70.17% 21.85
(HL & ML) = (HL' & ML' )* 1.35
(V, HT & MT) = (V', HT' & MT')
LC-5A Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 26.9 t/m2 ≤ 55.41 t/sq-m, Safe
LC-5B Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 21.8 t/m2 ≤ 55.05 t/sq-m, Safe
Min % Effective Contact Area = 70.17% ≥50 % Safe

LC-5A LC-5B
Characteristic Ultimate bearing capacity = 60.95 60.56 t/m2
Design Ultimate bearing capacity (60.95 = 55.41 55.05 t/m2
/1.1) & (60.56 /1.1)

Design
Allowable Maximum
Contact ultimate
Description of contact base
load case area of pressure
base capacity
base (t/m2)
(t/m2)
Basic 20.13 38.82 Safe
Working State
Wind 100% 100% Safe 22.43 48.52 Safe
Method
Seismic 25.47 48.52 Safe
72
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Frequent 100% 90% Safe - - -

SLS
Rare - - - 21.94 43.13 Safe
Load
87% 50% Safe 25.39 72.61 Safe
Limit State combination-1
Method- Load
ULS 85% 50% Safe 19.25 46.32 Safe
combination-2
Seismic
70% 50% Safe 26.87 55.41 Safe
Combination
4. Bearing Capacity Calculations for Soil (As per IS: 6403):-
Length (L) m = 12.17

Width (B) m = 10.73 (Min of length or width)
Depth of foundation (Df) m = 3.5
Depth of water Table (Dw) m = 30 From ground level.
Cohesion (c) kN/m2 = 0
Angle of Resistance (φ) = 16.23°
Surcharge (q) (kN/m2) = 70
(γ1) bulk kN/m3 = 20
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity = 524.05 kN/m2

(For General Shear Failure because)
Gross Ultimate Bearing Capacity = 60.56 t/m2
Shape Factor Depth Factor Inclination Factor

Type Sc sq sγ dc dq dγ ic iq iγ
Rectangle 1.176 1.176 0.647 1.09 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bearing capacity factor

Nc Nq Nγ Nφ
11.79 4.43 3.16 1.78
73
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Lenth Width GUBC

(φ)
(L') (B') (t/m2)
14.00 11.00 20.00 48.52 WSM:- LC-1 to 3, LSM(SLS):- LC-6 to 10
Water 12.92 10.10 20.00 46.95 LSM(ULS):- LC-1,2
Table at 12.64 9.88 16.23 29.86 LSM(ULS):- LC-3,4
GL 10.76 10.49 16.23 29.62 LSM(ULS):- LC-5A
9.25 10.30 16.23 28.77 LSM(ULS):- LC-5B
Lenth Width GUBC

(φ)
(L') (B') (t/m2)
14.00 11.00 20.00 97.04 WSM:- LC-1 to 3, LSM(SLS):- LC-6 to 10
13.10 10.24 20.00 94.39 LSM(ULS):- LC-1,2
No Water
12.94 10.12 16.23 60.21 LSM(ULS):- LC-3,4
Table
12.66 10.79 16.23 60.95 LSM(ULS):- LC-5A
12.17 10.73 16.23 60.56 LSM(ULS):- LC-5B
Angle of Resistance (φ) = 20.00 Set-1 From Limit state code

Here L' and B' corresponds to Aeff and A gross depending upon case.
5. Prob 3 - Foundation Resting on Rock with Water Table at Ground Level

(Ah & At = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.08 )
Length 10.00

Summary of Forces of structure without any factor-
For forces refer input data and load calculations (Buoyant & seismic force and footing wt. can be
changed depending upon size of footing)
(t) (t) (t) (tm) (tm)
1 DEAD LOAD 770.00 - - 93.74 0.00
2 Surfacing 90.00 - - 10.96 0.00
74
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3 SIDL 45.00 - - 5.48 0.00

4 FPLL 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00
5 LL (Max. V case) 148.38 9.87 - 349.71 96.00
6 Pier cap 140.00 - - - -
7 Pier 42.92 - - - -
10 (a) Horizontal force Basic (Live - - 92.38 - 765.22
Load case)
10 (b) Horizontal force Basic (No - - 54.30 - 449.77
Live load case)
10 (c) Seismic Force 0.00 153.66 304.57 962.27 2066.53
(While Calculating factored force in seismic longitudinal direction, 30% of s eismic vertical and

As Per IRC:78
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00 1.00 0.20
Wind 0.00 1.00 0.00
Seismic 0.00 0.00 1.00
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00
LC-1
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind -
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
75
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
After taking effect of

LOC, if any
σv (t/m2) σv’ Aeff/ AGross
Factored load V (t) HT HL MT ML Max Min Max %
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
1689 10 92 460 861 24.8 9.0 24.8 100 %

LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind 1.00
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00

LOC, if any
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 1744 53 108 908 991 28.8 6.0 28.84 100 %
- 1635 53 108 908 991 27.7 5.0 27.74 100 %
LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 0.20
Wind -
*Seismic 1.35 *Seismic force are multiply by 1.35 as
per Clause 219.8 of IRC:6-2017
Buoyancy 1.00

LOC, if any
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
1571 64 411 570 2809 36.0 -4.6 36.30 94.75 %
76
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
LOC tends to loss of contact if any.
i) Min Pressure = -4.57 t/m2 < 0 ,Check for LOC
Effective Contact Area (For Non Seismic) = 100 % > 80% , Safe
(For Seismic) = 94.8 % > 67% , Safe
(Cl 706.3.3.1 of IRC:78-2014)
ii) Max base Pressure

Basic = 24.8 t/m2 (≤ 1850 / 7 = 264.29 t/sq-m, Safe)
Wind = 28.8 t/m2 (≤ 1850 * 1.25 / 7 = 330.36 t/sq-m, Safe)
Seismic = 36.3 t/m2 (≤ 1850 * 1.25 / 7 = 330.36 t/sq-m, Safe)
Gross safe bearing Pressure = 1850 t/m2


DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.35,1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.75,1 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
LL & FPLL 1.50 1.15 1.30 1.00 0.20 0.75 0.20 1.00 0.75 0.00
Load
Wind 0.90 1.50 0.80 1.30 - 0.50 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.00
Seismic - - - - 1.50 - - - - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

77
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.50 0.60
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
After taking effect

of LOC, if any
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 1698 29 81 599 743 25.0 8.9 25.0 100 %
LC-6
- 1643 29 81 599 743 24.5 8.4 24.5 100 %
+ 1622 28 65 451 556 22.3 10.2 22.3 100 %
LC-7
- 1556 28 65 451 556 21.6 9.5 21.6 100 %
Min % contact area Aeff/ AGross = 100 % > 80% , Safe


Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.60 1.00
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
78
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
After taking effect

of LOC, if any
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
LC-8 + 1740 36 108 731 991 27.7 7.1 27.7 100 %
- 1675 36 108 731 991 27.1 6.4 27.1 100 %
LC-9 + 1725 51 108 823 967 28.0 6.5 28.0 100 %
- 1616 51 108 823 967 26.9 5.4 26.9 100 %
Max base pressure is = 28.0 t/m2 (≤ 264.29 t/sq.-m, Safe)

Gross safe bearing Pressure = 1850 t/m 2
Design Gross safe bearing Pressure (1850 / 7) = 264.3 t/m2

LC-10
Quasi
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.20
LL & FPLL Load 0.00
Wind 0.00
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
After taking effect

of LOC, if any
V (t) HT HL MT ML Max Min Max %
Factored load (t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
1559 0 54 112 450 19.0 12.2 19.0 100 %

σv (t/m2) = Bearing pressure from trapezoidal pr. Distributions for ULS check-
Overturning, Overall stability and sliding of foundation are carried out under in this
clause.
79
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

LC-1 LC-2
Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35
Surfacing 1.75 1.75
Wind 0.90 1.50
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
After taking effect

of LOC, if any
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 2511 54 162 1081 1486 40.5 9.7 40.5 100 %
LC-1
- 2412 54 162 1081 1486 39.5 8.7 39.5 100 %
+ 2492 76 162 1228 1453 41.0 8.8 41.0 100 %
LC-2
- 2328 76 162 1228 1453 39.4 7.2 39.4 100 %
Max. Base Pressure = 41.0 t/m2 (≤ 411.11 t/sq-m, Safe)

Min % Effective Contact Area = 100 % > 67% , Safe
Design Gross safe bearing Pressure (1850 /4.5) = 411.11 t/m2

LC-3 LC-4
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00
Wind 0.80 1.30
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
80
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
After taking effect

of LOC, if any
σv σv' Aeff/ AGross
(t/m2)
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
LC-3 + 1778 47 141 924 1288 31.0 4.5 31.0 100 %
- 1690 47 141 924 1288 30.2 3.6 30.2 100 %
LC-4 + 1761 66 141 1043 1259 31.4 3.8 31.4 100 %
- 1618 66 141 1043 1259 30.0 2.4 30.0 100 %

Design Gross safe bearing Pressure (1321 406.46 t/m2

/3.25)
LC-5A LC-5B
Seismic
DL Adding DL Rev.
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.00
Wind - -
Seismic 1.50 1.50
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
V' (t) HT' (t) HL' (t) MT’ (t-m) ML’ (t-m)
Seismic Seismic
LC-5A 2269 71 457 0 656 3100 19
LC-5B 1571 71 457 0 613 3100 19
for the exact requirement. Hence the seismic moment and shear at the base is multiplied by
overstrength factor to simplify the process.
81
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

LOC, if any
σv (t/m2) σv' Aeff/ AGross
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
LC-5A 2269 71 617 656 4211 51.9 -6.5 52.5 93.62 %
LC-5B 1571 71 617 613 4211 44.7 -13.2 50.7 68.97 %
(HL & ML) = (HL' & ML')* 1.35
(V, HT & MT) = (V', HT' & MT')
Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 52.5 t/m2 (≤ 406.46 t/sq-m, Safe)

Min % Effective Contact Area = 69.0 % > 67% , Safe
Gross safe bearing Pressure = 1321.00 t/m 2
Design Gross safe bearing Pressure = 406.46 t/m2

(1321 /3.25)

Design
Allowable Maximum
Contact ultimate
Description contact base
of load case area of pressure
base capacity
base (t/m2)
(t/m2)
Basic 24.82 264.29 Safe
Working State 100 % 80% Safe
Wind 28.84 330.36 Safe
Method
Seismic 95 % 67% Safe 36.30 330.36 Safe
Frequent 100 % 80% Safe - - -
SLS
Rare - - - 27.99 264.29 Safe
Load
Limit 100 % 67% Safe 41.00 411.11 Safe
combination-1
State
Method- Load
ULS 100 % 67% Safe 31.42 406.46 Safe
combination-2
Seismic
69 % 67% Safe 52.50 406.46 Safe
Combination
6. Prob 4 - Foundation Resting on Rock with no Water Table

(Ah & At = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.08)
82
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Length 8.90

(t) (t) (t) ( tm ) ( tm )
1 DEAD LOAD 770.00 - - 93.74 0.00
2 Surfacing 90.00 - - 10.96 0.00
3 SIDL 45.00 - - 5.48 0.00
4 FPLL 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00
5 LL (Max. V case) 148.38 9.87 - 349.71 96.00
6 Pier cap 140.00 - - - -
7 Pier 42.92 - - - -
10 (a) Horizontal force Basic - - 92.38 - 765.22
(Live Load case)
10 (b) Horizontal force Basic - - 54.30 - 449.77
(No Live load case)
10 (c) Seismic Force 0.00 140.11 291.02 939.69 2043.96
(While Calculating factored force in seismic longitudinal direction, 30% of seismic vertical and

83
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
As Per IRC: 78
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00 1.00 0.20
Wind 0.00 1.00 0.00
Seismic 0.00 0.00 1.00
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00 1.00
LC-1
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind -
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
LOC, if any
(t/m2)
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
1870 10 92 460 861 34.9 12.4 34.9 100 %
LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 1.00
Wind 1.00
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
LOC, if any
(t/m2)
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 1925 53 108 908 991 40.5 8.1 40.46 100 %
- 1815 53 108 908 991 39.1 6.8 39.08 100 %
84
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
LC-2
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.00
LL & FPLL Load 0.20
Wind -
*Seismic 1.35 *Seismic force are multiply by 1.35 as
Buoyancy 1.00 per Clause 219.8 of IRC: 6-2017

LOC, if any
(t/m2)
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
1751 59 393 561 2779 50.5 -6.3 51.03 94.83 %

LOC tends to loss of contact if any.
i) Min Pressure = -6.31 t/m2 < 0 ,Check for LOC

Effective Contact Area (For Non Seismic) = 100 % > 80% , Safe
(For Seismic) = 94.8 % > 67% , Safe
(Cl 706.3.3.1 of IRC:78-2014)
ii) Max base Pressure

Basic = 34.9 t/m2 (≤ 1850 / 7 = 264.29 t/sq-m, Safe)
Wind = 40.5 t/m2 (≤ 1850 * 1.25 / 7 = 330.36 t/sq-m, Safe)
Seismic = 51.0 t/m2 (≤ 1850 * 1.25 / 7 = 330.36 t/sq-m, Safe)


DL, SIDL = 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.35,1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Surfacing = 1.75 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.75,1 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
LL & FPLL = 1.50 1.15 1.30 1.00 0.20 0.75 0.20 1.00 0.75 0.00
Load
85
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

Wind = 0.90 1.50 0.80 1.30 - 0.50 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.00
Seismic = - - - - 1.50 - - - - -
Buoyancy = 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.50 0.60
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00

LOC, if any
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 1878 29 81 599 743 35.1 12.3 35.1 100 %
LC-6
- 1824 29 81 599 743 34.4 11.6 34.4 100 %
+ 1802 28 65 451 556 31.3 14.2 31.3 100 %
LC-7
- 1737 28 65 451 556 30.5 13.3 30.5 100 %
Min % contact area Aeff/ AGross = 100 % > 80%, Safe

86
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.20 1.20
Wind 0.60 1.00
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00

LOC, if any
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 1921 36 108 731 991 38.9 9.6 38.9 100 %
LC-8
- 1855 36 108 731 991 38.1 8.8 38.1 100 %
+ 1906 51 108 823 967 39.3 8.8 39.3 100 %
LC-9
- 1796 51 108 823 967 37.9 7.4 37.9 100 %
Max base pressure is = 39.3 t/m2 (≤ 264.29 t/sq-m, Safe)

Design Gross safe bearing Pressure (1850 / 7) = 264.3 t/m2

Quasi per. Combination LC-10
Quasi
-
DL, SIDL 1.00
Surfacing 1.20
LL & FPLL Load 0.00
Wind 0.00
Seismic -
Buoyancy 1.00
87
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

LOC, if any
σv (t/m2) σv' Aeff/AGross
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
1740 0 54 112 450 26.7 17.2 26.7 100 %

σv (t/m2) = Bearing pressure from trapezoidal pr. Distributions for ULS check-
LC-1 LC-2
Combination-1
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.35
Surfacing 1.75 1.75
Wind 0.90 1.50
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00

LOC, if any
σv (t/m2) σv’ Aeff/AGross
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 2632 54 162 1081 1486 55.1 11.4 55.1 100 %
LC-1
- 2534 54 162 1081 1486 53.8 10.1 53.8 100 %
+ 2613 76 162 1228 1453 55.8 10.2 55.8 100 %
LC-2
- 2449 76 162 1228 1453 53.7 8.1 53.7 100 %
88
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

Design Gross safe bearing Pressure (1850/4.5) = 411.11 t/m2

LC-3 LC-4
Combination-2
LL Lead Wind Lead
DL, SIDL 1.00 1.00
Surfacing 1.00 1.00
Wind 0.80 1.30
Seismic - -
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00

LOC if any
Factored load
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
+ 1958 47 141 924 1288 43.5 5.9 43.5 100 %
LC-3
- 1871 47 141 924 1288 42.4 4.8 42.4 100 %
+ 1941 66 141 1043 1259 44.1 4.9 44.1 100 %
LC-4
- 1799 66 141 1043 1259 42.3 3.1 42.3 100 %

Min % Effective Contact Area = 100 % > 67%, Safe
LC-5A LC-5B
Seismic
DL Adding DL Rev.
DL, SIDL 1.35 1.00
Surfacing 1.75 1.00
89
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Wind - -
Seismic 1.50 1.50
Buoyancy 1.00 1.00
V' (t) HT' (t) HL' (t) MT' (t-m) ML' (t-m)
Seismic Seismic
LC-5A 2390 65 437 0 646 3066 19
LC-5B 1751 65 437 0 603 3066 19
strength factor to simplify the process.

LOC, if any
(t) (t) (t-m) (t-m)
LC-5A 2390 65 589 646 4165 71.1 -10.8 72.3 90.85 %
LC-5B 1751 65 589 603 4165 62.7 -18.5 71.0 69.17 %
(HL & ML) = (HL' & ML' )* 1.35
(V, HT & MT) = (V', HT' & MT')
Max. Base Pressure (P/Aeff) = 72.3 t/m2 (≤ 406.46 t/sq-m, Safe)

Min % Effective Contact Area = 69.2 % > 67% , Safe
Gross safe bearing Pressure = 1321.00 t/m 2

Design
Allowable Maximum
Contact ultimate
Description contact base
of load case area of pressure
base capacity
base (t/m2)
(t/m2)
Basic 34.85 264.29 Safe
Working State 100 % 80% Safe
Wind 40.46 330.36 Safe
Method
Seismic 95 % 67% Safe 51.03 330.36 Safe
90
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Frequent 100 % 80% Safe - - -

SLS
Rare - - - 39.29 264.29 Safe
Load
100 % 67% Safe 55.80 411.11 Safe
Limit combination-1
State
Method- ULS Load
100 % 67% Safe 44.10 406.46 Safe
combination-2
Seismic
69 % 67% Safe 72.29 406.46 Safe
Combination
7. Bearing Capacity Calculations for Rock :-

Method using Core Strength (Based on IS : 12070-1987)
The least compressive strength of the core samples of the rocky strata met below the founding
level were obtained in laboratory and is as under.
qc = 7400 t/m2
Net allowable bearing capacity is estimated by using the following expression
qS = qc * Nj
qs = Safe bearing pressure (gross)
qc = Uniaxial compressive strength of rock core
Nj = Empirical coefficient depending upon the spacing of discontinuities
The equation includes a factor of safety of 3.
The least value of Nj is 0.1 and it pertains to a situation where spacing of discontinuities is 30 to
100 cms. Perusal of the borehole data shows that the least value of qc of the supporting strata
is as under.
qc = 7400 t/m2
Nj = 0.25 Assuming Spacing of discontinuities 100 to 300 cm
qS = 1850 t/m2
(7400 * 0.25)
For Set 2 (Table 2) of Limit State code-
qc = 7400
q'c = 5285.71
(7400 / 1.4)
Nj = 0.25
qS = 1321.43
(5285.71 * 0.25)
91
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
2. Example on Pile Foundation by Limit State Method and by
Working Stress Method as per present IRC:78
1. Input Data and Load Calculations
2 Span continuous Module of 42.5 m + 42.5 m

Pier Height H = 9.5 m (Pier Ht. taken as level diff. b/w
Pier Cap Top & Pier Base)
Radius of Curvature R = 700 m
Design Speed, V = 80 km / hr
Span 1 Continuity Span 2
42.5 42.5
P1 (Free Pier) P2 P3 (Free Pier)
c/l of Exp Jt. Fixed Pier c/l of Exp Jt.
Depth of Box Girder, = 2.75 m

Thickness of Wearing Course = 0.1 m
Bearing Top to Pier Cap Top = 0.3 m
Depth of Pier Cap = 2.5 m
Long. Dist. of Bearings from Pier C/l = 1.05 m
Transverse Dist. b/w Bearings = 5.5 m
Length of Pier Cap = 7.2 m (Trans. Direction)
Width of Pier Cap = 4 m (Long. Direction)
Length of Pier = 2.7 m (Long. Direction)
Width of Pier = 2.4 m (Trans. Direction)
Long. Dir.
4m
1 2
5.5 m 7.2 m
1 2
1.05 m
Positions of Bearing:
92
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Left Span Right Span

Bearing 1 2.75 2.70
Bearing 2 -2.75 -2.80
Material
Material Factor for Concrete γm = 1.5 (For Basic & Seismic Case)
Steel γs = 1.15
Pier Cap Pier Pile Cap Pile

Grade of Concrete M 50 M 50 M 35 M 35
fck 50 50 35 35
fcm 60 60 45 45
Ecm 35220 35220 32308 32308
fctm 3.52 3.52 2.77 2.77
fctk 2.46 2.46 1.94 1.94
fctd 1.64 1.64 1.29 1.29
fcd 22.33 22.33 15.63 15.63
Grade of Steel = 500 MPa

fyd = 435 MPa
Es = 200000 MPa
Cracked MOI = 75%
Density of Concrete = 2.5 t/m3
Density of Soil Fill = 2 t/m3
Support Reactions:
Span Dead SIDL SIDL FPLL + Live Load Live Load Vertical Trans.
Length Load Perm Surfacing Cycle w/o Impact - w/o Impact - Wind Wind
Track 3 Lane 1 Lane
42.5 673 53 91 42 124 90 44 24
Impact Factor for Pile = 1

Diameter of Pile = 1.2 m
Pile Spacing = 3.6 m
Pile Length = 30 m (for modelling purpose)
Depth of Liquefaction zone below GL = 0m
Top of Pile Cap below GL = 0.5 m
93
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
6 Pile Group
No. of Piles = 6
Size of pile cap (6 Pile group) = 8900 X 5300 X 1800 mm
Long Trans. (Depth)
Idealised STAAD Model For Calculating of Pile Load
94
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Estimation of Seismic Coefficients
Cracked sectional properties ( 75% of gross properties) have been considered for the analysis
as per Cl. 219.5.1 of IRC:6-2014.
Zone Factor, Z = 0.24 (For Seismic Zone IV)

Importance Factor, I = 1.2 (for Important Bridges)
For Pile Foundation,
Frequency in Transverse Direction = 0.721 per sec. ; Time Period = 1.387 sec
Frequency in Longitudinal Direction = 0.768 per sec. ; Time Period = 1.301 sec
Sa/g in transverse direction = 0.981

Sa/g in longitudinal direction = 1.045
Response Reduction Factor, R
RCC pier with Ductile Detailing (Trans. Direc.) = 3

RCC pier with Ductile Detailing (Long. Direc.) = 3
Pile Foundations (100% Seismic in Trans. Direc.) = 2.22 (As per Table 9 of IRC:6-
Pile Foundations (30% Seismic in Long. Direc.) = 3.00 2014, 35% more than that
Pile Foundations (30% Seismic in Vertical Direc.) = 3.00 for Pier, assuming hinge
at pier bottom in trans. dir.)
Pile Foundations (100% Seismic in Long. Direc.) = 2.22 (As per Table 9 of IRC:6-
Pile Foundations (30% Seismic in trans. Direc.) = 3.00 2014, 35% more than that
Pile Foundations (30% Seismic in Vertical Direc.) = 3.00 for Pier, assuming hinge
at pier bottom in long. dir.)
Plastic hinge is assumed to form at pier bottom in only one direction at a time.
Seismic Acceleration Coefficient, Ah, for Pile Foundation are as follows:
For Piles,
(100% Seismic in trans. Dir.) Seismic Coeff. AhT = 0.064 (Plastic hinge in transverse dir.)
(30% Seismic in long. Dir.) Seismic Coeff. AhL = 0.050
(30% Seismic in vertical Dir.) Seismic Coeff. AhV = 0.031
(100% Seismic in long. Dir.) Seismic Coeff. AhL = 0.068 (Plastic hinge in longitudinal dir.)
(30% Seismic in long. Dir.) Seismic Coeff. AhT = 0.047
(30% Seismic in vertical Dir.) Seismic Coeff. AhV = 0.033
Vertical seismic coefficient are considered as 2/3 of horizontal seismic coefficient.

Total Longitudinal Seismic Force calculated for all the 2 Spans will be applied on the
Fixed Pier.
95
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Horizontal Forces on Pier due to Wind Load
As per Cl. 209.3.7 of IRC 6 - 2014, wind speed is restricted to 36 m/s than 39.6 m/s to take live
load contribution.
Transverse Pressure, PT = Pz x G x Cd
Pz = 463.7* (36/27.8)2 = 777.59 N/m2
G = 2
Cd = 1.3 (For Rect. Pier)
Hence, PT = 2022 N/m2
= 0.21 t/m2
96
2.0 Load Combinations as Per IRC : 6 - 2017 Table B.4 Pile with Max. Pile with Min.
Load (KN) Load (KN)
LOAD 1 DEAD LOAD 3138 2656
LOAD 2 SIDL PERMANENT 355 -23
LOAD 3 SIDL SURFACING 465 104
LOAD 4 FPLL + CYCLE TRACK LOAD 526 -263
LOAD 5 CARRIAGEWAY LL + Centrifugal Force - 3 LANE CASE 878 -101
LOAD 6 CARRIAGEWAY LL + Centrifugal Force - 1 LANE CASE 919 -356
LOAD 7 WIND LOAD 713 -438
LOAD 9 CARRIAGEWAY LL + Centrifugal Force - 3 LANE CASE ON 517 -129
SINGLE SPAN
LOAD 11 Earthquake Transverse - 3 Lane Case 2442 -2442
LOAD 12 Earthquake Transverse - 1 Lane Case 2422 -2422
Load 13 Earthquake Long. 4035 -4035 For R=1
Load 14 Earthquake Vertical - 3 Lane Case 401 277
97
Load 15 Earthquake Vertical - 1 Lane Case 404 270
Limit State As Per Table B4
Load Combination-1
Live Load Leading L1*1.35+L2*1.35+L3 *1.75+(L4+L5)*1.5+L7*0.9 8277 kN
Wind Load Leading L1*1.35+L2*1.35+L3 *1.75+(L4+L5)*1.15+L7*1.5 8213 kN
Load Combination-2
Live Load Leading L1*1.0+L2*1.0+L3 *1.0+(L4+L5)*1.3+L7*0.8 6353 kN
Wind Load Leading L1*1.0+L2*1.0+L3 *1.0+(L4+L5)*1+L7*1.3 6289 kN
Seismic Combination
Seismic Trans Servic L1*1.35+L2*1.35+L3*1.75+L7*0.0+(L11+0.3*L13+0.3*L14)*1.5 7843 kN
Seismic Long Servic L1*1.35+L2*1.35+L3*1.75+L7*0.0+(L13+0.3*L11+0.3*L14)*1.5 8680 kN
Working Stress Method as per Table 1
Normal Case L1+L2+L3 +(L4+L5)+L7 6075 kN
Seismic Case Load Combination VI
Seismic Trans Servic L1+L2+L3 +(L4+L5)*0.2+L7+ L11+0.3*L13+0.3*L14 6494 kN
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Seismic Long Servic L1+L2+L3 +(L4+L5)*0.2+L7+ L13+0.3*L11+0.3*L14 7052 kN

IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.0 Presentation of Results For Pile Foundation Solved Example:
Load Combination Applied Action *Pile Resistance (KN)

Limit State As Per Table B4 (KN) φ= 25 , Pile φ = 30 , Pile
Length = 29m Length = 29m
Load Combination-1
Live Load Leading 8277 12286 16985
Wind Load Leading 8213 12286 16985
Load Combination-2
Live Load Leading 6353 7227 9991
Wind Load Leading 6289 7227 9991
Seismic Combination
Seismic Trans Service 7843 8775 12132
Seismic Long Service 8680 8775 12132
Working Stress Method as per Table 1

Normal Case 6075 5897 8153
Seismic Case Load Combination VI
Seismic Trans Service 6494 7371 10191
Seismic Long Service 7052 7371 10191
*For pile capacities refer subsequent calculations
4.0 Calculations of Pile Capacity using Ground Parameters with angle of friction φ=250:
(Taking soil stratification into account)
Existing G.L. = 0 m R.L. (Assumed as 0.00m

for simplicity)
Pile Length = 28.70 m
Working Load at Cut-off Level = 0 kN
Working Pile capacity (Theoretically calculated) = 5897 kN
Base resistance = 1115 kN 19 % of total capacity
Shaft resistance = 4782 kN 81 % of total capacity
Founding level of pile = -31.000 m R.L.
98
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
INPUT DATA :
Table 2 Table 4 Set Values of Partial Factor (γm) to be used for
Partial Factor for Soil Parameters (γm) for computing the Material for Computation of Geo Technical action
geo technical actions and bearing capacity Combination Set
Soil Parameter Symbol Set 1 Set 2 For computation of geo technical action, negative skin friction and 1
estimation of effects due to geotechnical lateral actions including
those specified in Clause 4.2 for combination A1
Combination Combination
(1) and in (2) and in For computation of Geo technical action in Combination A2 and 1
Accidental seismic in seismic combination excluding the negative skin friction effects
Combination combination and effects due to geo technical lateral actions including those
specified in Clause 4.2
Angle of Shearing φ 1.0 1.25
Resistance In Combination A2 and in seismic combination for computation 2
of negative skin friction effects and effects due to geo technical
lateral action, including those specified in Clause 4.2
Undrained Shear γcu 1.0 1.4
For accidental combination for estimation of geotechnical action 1
Strength
inclusive of negative skin friction effects
unconfined compressive γq3 1.0 1.4
For accidental combination for estimation of effects of lateral 2
strength
actions including those specified in Clause 4.2
Density γt 1.0 1.0
Design angle of shearing resistance=φ =tan (tanφ/γm)

1 -1
Table 5
Partial Factor for ground resistance for shaft in compression
Component Symbol For bored and Driven Piles GRS for GRA for accidental Modal Factor for bored
continuous Seismic combination and auger pile and
auger Pile Combination driven piles
GR1 GR2 GR1 GR2 on For Vehicle Ship M
collision Log Collision
Impact and barge
collision
For Base resistance γb 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.40 1.25 1.40 1.2
For shaft resistance γs 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.15 1.25 1.15 1.2
resistance
Ground Level From Bore Hole = 0.000 m

Diameter of pile, D = 1.2 m
Max. Depth for Overburden Pr. = 20 x Pile dia. = 24 m
Pile cap Top Level = -0.500 m
Pile cap Bottom LVL = -2.300 m
Depth of Water Table = 0.000 m
Submerged Pile Length = 28.70 m
99
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
INPUT SOIL PARAMETERS :
Soil Layer Level at Level at Wet/ Cohesion Angle of Effective Earth Reduction
No. As per Top of Bottom Bulk internal Density Pressure factor
approved soil Layer of soil Density friction of soil Coefficient (as per
GIR from Layer from fig. 2 of IS
parameter assumed assumed 2911 (Part
table G.L. G.L. 1/ Sec 2) :
(0.00m) (0.00m) 2010
C Φ=δ γeff K α
(m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m )
3 2
(kN/m ) 3
0 0.000 1.000 18.0 0 0.0 10.000 1.500 0

0 1.000 2.300 20.0 0.00 0.0 10.000 1.500 0
1 2.300 8.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.4
2 8.000 9.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
3 9.000 11.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.4
4 11.000 14.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.55
4 14.000 14.500 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
5 14.500 18.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
6 18.000 17.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
7 17.000 20.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.27
7 20.000 24.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0.27
8 24.000 31.000 20.0 0.00 25.0 10.000 1.500 0
(1) SHAFT RESISTANCE
Soil Layer Depth PD at PD at Thickness PDi at tan δ Surface K*PDi* α*C*

No. As per for Over Top of bottom of Layer centre Area tanδ* Asi
approved burden Layer of Layer of layer Asi Asi
GIR Pressure
parameter from G.L.
table
(m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) m2 kN kN
0 1.000 0.000 10.000 1 5.0 0.000 3.770 0 0.00
0 2.300 10.000 23.000 1.30 16.5 0.000 4.901 0.00 0.00
1 8.000 23.000 80.000 5.70 51.5 0.466 21.488 774 0.00
2 9.000 80.000 90.000 1.00 85.0 0.466 3.770 224 0.00
3 11.000 90.000 110.000 2.00 100.0 0.466 7.540 527 0.00
4 14.000 110.000 140.000 3.00 125.0 0.466 11.310 989 0.00
4 14.500 140.000 145.000 0.50 142.5 0.466 1.885 188 0.00
5 18.000 145.000 180.000 3.50 162.5 0.466 13.195 1500 0.00
6 17.000 180.000 170.000 -1.00 175.0 0.466 -3.770 -461 0.00
7 20.000 170.000 200.000 3.00 185.0 0.466 11.310 1463 0.00
7 24.000 200.000 240.000 4.00 220.0 0.466 15.080 2320 0.00
8 24.000 240.000 240.000 7.00 240.0 0.466 26.389 4430 0.00
Total 11955 0
100
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Total Ultimate Shaft resistance = 11955 kN

(2) BASE RESISTANCE :
Angle of friction at Toe Φ = 25°
Bearing Capacity Factors :
Refer Anexure B-2, IS : 2911 part 1/sec 2 for Nc = 20.72 Value From Graph
Refer fig 1, IS : 2911 part 1/ sec 2 for Nq = 10.00 Φ Nq
Refer Table 1, IS : 6403 for Ng Nγ = 10.88 30 20
Cross-sec.area of pile toe, Ap = 1.13 m2 31 24.5
Eff. unit wt.of soil at pile toe, g = 10.00 kN/m3 32 29
Eff. overburden at pile toe, PD = 240.00 kN/m 2
33 33
Average cohesion at pile toe, Cp = 0.00 kN/m2 34 41
35 47
Qu1 = Ap*(0.5*D*g*Ng + PD*Nq) = 73.83 kN + 2714.3 kN = 2788 kN
Qu2 = Ap*Nc*Cp = 0 kN
Total resistance due to end bearing = 2788 kN
A. Pile Capacity Based On Working
Stress Method
Factor of Safety = 2.5
Capacity Load at Pile Toe = 5897 kN
B. Pile Capacity Based On Limit State:
CAPACITY OF PILE: Qufc Qubc Quc

Skin Friction End Bearing Total
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Pile = 11955 + 2788 = 14743 kN
81% 19%
QRd = Qubc/ γb + Qufc/γs or Quc/γt
Where Quc is the characteristic resistance
Qubc characteristic base resistance
Qufc characteristic shaft resistance
QRd is the reduced capacity of pile based on partial factor for ground resistance.
For Load Combination 1 & Accidental Load Combination

QRd = 11955/1 + 2789/1 or 14743/1
11955 + 2788 or 14743 kN
Qud = QRd/M = QRd/1.2 (Capacity of Pile ) = 12286 kN
101
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
For Load Combination 2

QRd = 11955/1.4 + 2789/1.7 or 14743/1.7
QRd = 8539 + 1640 or 8672 kN
For Seismic Load Combination
QRd = 11955/1.15 + 2789/1.4 or 14743/1.4
QRd = 10395 + 1992 or 10531 kN
5.0 Calculations of Pile Capacity using Ground Parameters with angle of friction φ=300:
(Taking soil stratification into account)
Existing G.L. = 0 m R.L. (Assumed as 0.00m for

simplicity)
Pile Length = 28.70 m
Working Load at Cut-off Level = 0 kN
Working Pile capacity (Theoretically calculated) = 8153 kN
Base resistance = 2232 kN 27 % of total capacity
Shaft resistance = 5921 kN 73 % of total capacity
Founding level of pile = -31.000 m R.L.
INPUT DATA :
Table 2 Table 4 Set Values of Partial Factor (γm) to be used for

Partial Factor for Soil Parameters (γm) for computing the Material for Computation of Geo Technical action
geo technical actions and bearing capacity Combination Set
Soil Parameter Symbol Set 1 Set 2 For computation of geo technical action, negative skin friction and 1
estimation of effects due to geotechnical lateral actions including
those specified in Clause 4.2 for combination A1
Combination Combination
(1) and in (2) and in For computation of Geo technical action in Combination A2 and 1
Accidental seismic in seismic combination excluding the negative skin friction effects
Combination combination and effects due to geo technical lateral actions including those
specified in Clause 4.2
Angle of Shearing φ 1.0 1.25
Resistance In Combination A2 and in seismic combination for computation 2
of negative skin friction effects and effects due to geo technical
lateral action, including those specified in Clause 4.2
Undrained Shear γcu 1.0 1.4
For accidental combination for estimation of geotechnical action 1
Strength
inclusive of negative skin friction effects
unconfined compressive γq3 1.0 1.4
For accidental combination for estimation of effects of lateral 2
strength
actions including those specified in Clause 4.2
Density γt 1.0 1.0
Design angle of shearing resistance=φ =tan (tanφ/γm)

1 -1
102
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Table 5
Partial Factor for ground resistance for shaft in compression
Component Symbol For bored and Driven Piles GRS for GRA for accidental Modal Factor for bored
continuous Seismic combination and auger pile and
auger Pile Combination driven piles
GR1 GR2 GR1 GR2 on For Vehicle Ship M
collision Log Collision
Impact and barge
collision
For Base resistance γb 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.40 1.25 1.40 1.2
For shaft resistance γs 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.15 1.25 1.15 1.2
resistance
Ground Level From Bore Hole = 0.000 m

Diameter of pile, D = 1.2 m
Max. Depth for Overburden Pr. = 20 x Pile dia. = 24 m
Pile cap Top Level = -0.500 m
Pile cap Bottom LVL = -2.300 m
Depth of Water Table = 0.000 m
Submerged Pile Length = 28.70 m
INPUT SOIL PARAMETERS :
Soil Layer Level at Level at Wet/ Cohesion Angle of Effective Earth Reduction
No. As per Top of Bottom Bulk internal Density Pressure factor
approved soil Layer of soil Density friction of soil Coefficient (as per
GIR from Layer from fig. 2 of IS
parameter assumed assumed 2911 (Part
table G.L. G.L. 1/ Sec 2) :
(0.00m) (0.00m) 2010
C Φ=δ γeff K α
(m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m )
3 2
(kN/m ) 3
0 0.000 1.000 18.0 0 0.0 10.000 1.500 0

0 1.000 2.300 20.0 0.00 0.0 10.000 1.500 0
1 2.300 8.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.4
2 8.000 9.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
3 9.000 11.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.4
4 11.000 14.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.55
4 14.000 14.500 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
5 14.500 18.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
6 18.000 17.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.35
7 17.000 20.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.27
7 20.000 24.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0.27
8 24.000 31.000 20.0 0.00 30.0 10.000 1.500 0
103
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(1) SHAFT RESISTANCE
Soil Layer Depth PD at PD at Thickness PDi at tan δ Surface K*PDi* α*C*

No. As per for Over Top of bottom of Layer centre Area tanδ* Asi
approved burden Layer of Layer of layer Asi Asi
GIR Pressure
parameter from G.L.
table
(m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m2) m2 kN kN
0 1.000 0.000 10.000 1 5.0 0.000 3.770 0 0.00
0 2.300 10.000 23.000 1.30 16.5 0.000 4.901 0.00 0.00
1 8.000 23.000 80.000 5.70 51.5 0.577 21.488 958 0.00
2 9.000 80.000 90.000 1.00 85.0 0.577 3.770 278 0.00
3 11.000 90.000 110.000 2.00 100.0 0.577 7.540 653 0.00
4 14.000 110.000 140.000 3.00 125.0 0.577 11.310 1224 0.00
4 14.500 140.000 145.000 0.50 142.5 0.577 1.885 233 0.00
5 18.000 145.000 180.000 3.50 162.5 0.577 13.195 1857 0.00
6 17.000 180.000 170.000 -1.00 175.0 0.577 -3.770 -571 0.00
7 20.000 170.000 200.000 3.00 185.0 0.577 11.310 1812 0.00
7 24.000 200.000 240.000 4.00 220.0 0.577 15.080 2873 0.00
8 24.000 240.000 240.000 7.00 240.0 0.577 26.389 5485 0.00
Total 14801 0
Total Ultimate Shaft resistance = 14801 kN

(2) BASE RESISTANCE :
Angle of friction at Toe Φ = 30°
Bearing Capacity Factors :
Refer Anexure B-2, IS : 2911 part 1/sec 2 for Nc = 30.14 Value From
Graph
Refer fig 1, IS : 2911 part 1/ sec 2 for Nq = 20.00 Φ Nq
Refer Table 1, IS : 6403 for Ng Nγ = 22.40 30 20
Cross-sec.area of pile toe, Ap = 1.13 m2 31 24.5
Eff. unit wt.of soil at pile toe, g = 10.00 kN/m 3
32 29
Eff. overburden at pile toe, PD = 240.00 kN/m2 33 33
Average cohesion at pile toe, Cp = 0.00 kN/m2 34 41
35 47
Qu1 = Ap*(0.5*D*g*Ng + PD*Nq) = 152.00 kN + 5428.7 kN = 5581 kN
Qu2 = Ap*Nc*Cp = 0 kN
Total resistance due to end bearing = 5581 kN
104
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
A.
Pile Capacity Based On Working
Stress Method
Factor of Safety = 2.5
Capacity Load at Pile Toe = 8153 kN
B. Pile Capacity Based On Limit State:
CAPACITY OF PILE: Qufc Qubc Quc

Skin Friction End Bearing Total
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Pile = 14801 + 5581 = 20382 kN
73% 27%
QRd = Qubc/ γb + Qufc/γs or Quc/γt
Where Quc is Qubc the characteristic Resistance
characteristic base resistance
Qufc Characteristic shaft resistance
QRd is the reduced capacity of pile based on partial factor for ground resistance.
For Load Combination 1 & Accidental Load Combination

QRd = 14802/1 + 5581/1 or 20382/1
14801 + 5581 or 20382 kN
For Load Combination 2
QRd = 14802/1.4 + 5581/1.7 or 20382/1.7
QRd = 10572 + 3283 or 11989 kN
For Seismic Load Combination
QRd = 14802/1.15 + 5581/1.4 or 20382/1.4
QRd = 11841 + 3986 or 14559 kN
6.0 Conclusion & Discussion
Capacity of soil = 12286x1.2 = 14743 kN

With FOS 2.5 allowable load = 14743/2.5 = 5897 kN (Figure matches with
working stress-Normal)
For seismic case : 14743/2.0 = 7371 kN (Figure matches with seismic
capacity)
For combination-1 : 14743/1.2 = 12286 kN (Matches)
For combination-2: 14743/(1.7x1.2) = 7227 kN (matches) (FOS = 2.04)
105
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Alternative check. With FOS 2.5 capacity 5897 kN With 2.04 it should be 2.5/2.04x5897=7227
kN (matches)
During seismic FOS is 14743/8775 = 1.68 (2.04x0.8=1.63 Figure matches)
The design is governed by Seismic case 8775 kN( capacity) versus 8680 kN
Then under this situation for combination 2 the FOS will increase and will be 2.04x
7227/6353=2.32. Very close to 2.5. The FOS will become 2.32
Conclusion
FOS for combination-2 is 2.32
FOS for Seismic case is 1.68
106
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3. EXAMPLE OF PIER WELL FOUNDATION BY WORKING STRESS METHOD
AS PER IRC:78 AND LIMIT STATE METHOD
1. INPUT DATA AND LOAD CALCULATION
1.1 SAILENT LEVELS
Type of superstructure arrangement ON BEARING

Span fix on pier / left span = 43.000 m
Span free on pier / right span = 43.000 m
Radius of curvature = 650.000 m
Frl = 74.365 m
Total width of the bridge = 12.150 m
Total carriageway & footpath = 11.250 m
Bearing level = 71.565 m
CG of bearing pad = 71.965 m
Pier cap top level = 71.065 m
Depth of pier cap = 2.000 m
Bottom of pier cap = 69.065 m
Top of pier = 69.065 m
Top of well cap = 62.500 m
Founding level (Limit state) = 34.000 m
Founding level (Working stress) = 34.000 m
High flood level = 68.500 m
Low water level = 61.000 m
Max. Scour level = 53.000 m
Max. Scour level (seismic) = 54.550 m
Bed level SOIL = 66.500 m
1.2 Bearing Capacity Table: (Limit State Design)
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3 LC-4 LC-5A, 5B LC-6 LC-7

Action Action Seismic Accidental Quasi
Combination-1 Combination-2 Set-2 Set-2
Set-1 Set-2
Net Bearing Capacity t/m2 971 469.61 469.61 469.61
Partial Factor for material 1.35 1.35 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00
for base resistance
Design bearing capacity 719 719 427 427 470 470 470
107
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Net Bearing Capacity (For Working Stress) = 90 t/m2

Gross Bearing Capacity (Obtained from Geotech Report) = 109 t/m2
1.3 LOAD CALCULATION:
(a) Dead Load

Total dead load of 43 m span = 800.00 t
(b) Superimposed Dead Load
Total superimposed deal load for 43 m span = 68.80 t
= 70.00 t (Say)
(C) RCC Wearing coat = 0.20 t/m2
Total wt. of wearing coat/surfacing for 43 m span = 96.75 t
= 100.00 t (Say)
Total weight of pier cap = 100.00 t
Total weight of pier = 65.3 t
108
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(d) Loads due to LL:
Dst. Btw cl Longitudinal Transverse

Loads from (t) exp. Joint & cl moment moment Remarks
brg (m) (tm) (tm)
Case
Free/ Fixed/ Free/ Fixed/
Right Left Right Left
span span span span
Max. V Due to three lanes of
45.71 119.29 77.25 175.24
case class A
Max. ML Due to single lane of
0.00 119.23 1.05 1.05 125.19 241.48
case class 70rw & class A
Max. MT Due to single lane of
32.84 107.96 78.88 321.05
case class 70rw & class A
(e) Centrifugal Force
Centrifugal force = W.V2/127R

where,
W is the wt. on pier
V is the speed of vehicle
R is the radius of curvature
Speed of vehicle = 80 km/hr
Case W (t) Centrifugal force (t) MT (tm)

Pier Base
Max. V case 165.00 12.79 167.13
Max. ML case 119.23 9.24 120.77
Max. MT case 140.81 10.92 142.62
(f) Horizontal force on a pier in normal condition:
Arrangement to transfer horizontal force POT-PTFE
43.00 FR FX 43.00
Applied horizontal force: As per Clause 211.2 (b) of IRC:6-2014

For span of 43 m : Either two lanes of Class A or Class 70RW can accommodate on this span
For span of 43 m : Either three lanes of Class A can accommodate on this span
109
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Therefore total horizantal force for individual spans:
On 43 m On 43 m
With single lane of Class A & Class 70RW, Fh = 22.77 22.77 t
With three lanes of Class A, Fh = 13.85 13.85 t
Governing Fh = 22.77 22.77 t
(i) Transfering Horizontal Force Through Pot-Ptfe Bearings
As per Clause 211.5.1.1 of IRC:6-2014,
Force on fixed bearing = Fh - µ2*(Rg + Rq) OR Fh/2 + µ1*(Rg + Rq)

Force on free bearing = µ2*(Rg + Rq)
Where,
Fh = Applied horizontal force
Rg = Reaction due to dead load
Rq = Reaction due to live load
µ = Coefficient of friction at movable bearings µ1 0.05
µ2 0.03
Horizontal force on fixed bearing = 39.68 t

Rg = 485.00 t
Rq = 80.99 t
Total force on a pier = 39.68 t
(Force on free bearing is ignored as of opposite direction)
(g) Seismic Forces
= IV
(g) 1. Longitudinal Seismic Coefficient
Zone factor for seismic zone IV, Z = 0.24

Time period = 0.60 sec
For medium soil (10>N>30), Sa/g = 1.36/T = 2.3
Response Reduction Factor, R = 3
Ah = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.136
(g) 2. Transverse Seismic Coefficient
Zone factor for seismic zone IV, Z = 0.24

Time period = 0.7 sec
For medium soil (10>N>30), Sa/g = 1.36/T = 1.8
Response Reduction Factor, R = 3
110
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Ah = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g) = 0.110

Vertical Seismic Coefficient = 2/3 Horizontal Seismic = 0.091
Coefficient
(g) 3. Horizontal Forces in Seismic Condition
*For seismic load calculations, consider only 20% LL 0.20

(i) Seismic Transverse Case With POT-PTFE
Long. seismic on superstructure (30% seismic long) 39.58 t

µ1 0.05
µ2 0.03
Frictional force on free bearing μ2(Rg) 14.55 t

Frictional force on fixed bearing Fh-μ2(Rg) 25.03 t
or Fh/2+μ1(Rg+Rq) 44.85 t
or Fh 39.58 t
*Force on free bearing is acting opposite to the force on fixed bearing, hence
ignored to be on conservative side.
(ii) Seismic Longitudinal Case With POT-PTFE
Seismic force on superstructure (Fixed Span) 131.92 t

µ1 0.05
µ2 0.03
Frictional force on free bearing μ2(Rg) 14.55 t
Frictional force on fixed bearing Fh-μ2(Rg) 117.37 t
or Fh/2+μ1(Rg+Rq) 91.02 t
or Fh 131.92 t
* Force on free bearing is acting opposite to the force on fixed bearing, hence
ignored to be on conservative side.
(g) 4. In Longitudinal Direction
Longitudinal Sesmic Force Due to Force (t) Lever arm (m) Moment (tm)
Superstructure 131.92 9.07 1195.85
Pier cap 13.60 7.68 104.46
Pier 8.88 3.28 29.13
Total longitudinal Seismic force 154.40 1329.44
111
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(g) 5. In Transverse Direction
Transverse Sesmic Force Due to Force (t) Lever arm (m) Moment (tm)
Live Load (Horizontal) at 1.2 above FRL 3.64 13.07 47.54
Dead Load (Free span) 44.11 10.82 477.03
Dead Load (Fixed span) 44.11 10.82 477.03
Surfacing 11.03 11.87 130.84
SIDL 7.72 12.37 95.44
Pier cap 11.03 7.68 84.70
Pier 7.20 3.28 23.62
Total transverse Seismic force 128.82 1336.20
(g) 6. Summary of Seismic Forces & its Moment
Force (t) Moment (tm)

Vertical Direction 105.92 -
(h) Calculation of Forces Due to Wind - with Live Load
(h) 1. In Tansverse Direction
(i) Wind Force on Superstructure (As per Clause 209.3 of IRC:6-2010)
LWL condition HFL condition
Basic wind speed (Vb) (As per Fig.6) 40.89 m/s 42.73 m/s
H (avg. ht. of exposed surface from the ground 14.47 m 6.96 m
level)
From table 4
VZ (hourly mean speed of wind at height H) 29.05 m/s 27.80 m/s
PZ (horizontal wind pressure at height H) 507.28 N/m2 463.70 N/m2
Since table 4 is for basic wind speed (Vb) of
33 m/s
VZ calculated 36.0 m/s 36.0 m/s
PZ calculated 779.0 N/m2 777.6 N/m2
In hilly areas due to funnelling, PZ is increased 779.0 N/m2 777.6 N/m2
by 20%
As per Clause 209.3.3
Transverse wind force FT (in N) = PZ x A1 x G x CD eq.1

Here,
A1 is the area of the superstructure as seen in elevation including the floor system and crash
barrier
112
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Height of 43m span including height of crash = 3.850 m

barrier, d
Height of 43m span including height of crash = 3.850 m
barrier, d
So, Area A1 at which FT is acting (43m Span) = 3.850 m2/m
G is the gust factor (spans upto 150 m) = 2
CD is the drag coefficient
width of deck (b) = 12
b/d = 3.16
For bridge decks supported by single beam, = 1.44
CD (For above b/d ratio)
For bridge deck supported by two or more = 1.44
beams, CD
Putting all these values in eq.1

FT calculated 43m span 8651.11 N/m 8635.2 N/m
FT For 43 m span 37.92 t 37.85 t
FT For 43 m span 37.92 t 37.85 t
Long. Force on superstruture FL (25% of FT) 9.48 t 9.46 t
(As per Clause 209.3.4) (43m span)
Upward or downward vertical wind load FV = PZ x A3 x G x CL eq. 2

(in N) (As per Clause 209.3.5)
Here,

CL is the lift coefficient = 0.75
Other parameters PZ and G remains same as
used above

FV(+/-) 43m Span 14197.787 N/m 14171.6 N/m
43m Span 14197.787 N/m 14171.6 N/m
Fv (For 43m span) 62.23 t 62.12 t
(ii) Wind Force on Live Load
Transverse wind force FT (in N) = PZ x A3 x G x CD eq. 3

(acting at a ht. of 3m
above roadway)
113
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Height of crash barrier above roadway = 1.10 m

Net ht. at which FT is acting = 1.90 m
So Area (L x ht. at which FT is acting) = 1.90 m2/m
Drag coefficient, CD = 1.20 (As per Clause 209.3.6)

Putting these values in eq.3, FT calculated 3552.37 N/m 3545.8 N/m
0.36 t/m 0.36 t/m
FT (For 43 m span) 15.57 t 15.54 t
FT (For 43 m span) 15.57 t 15.54 t
Long. Force on superstruture FL (25% of FT) 3.89 t 3.89 t
(As per Clause 209.3.4) (43m span)
(iii) Wind Force on Substructure (As per Clause 209.4 of IRC:6-2010)
FT on pier and pier cap is calculated in the same way as

calculated in wind forces on superstructure
For pier,
Dia. of pier 2.25 m 2.25 m
Size of pier 0.00 m 0.00 m
Clear ht. of pier 6.57 m 0.56 m
A1 14.77 m2 1.27 m2
CD [For height / breadth ratio of 40] 0.60 (As per table 6)
13809 N 1186.22 N
So, FT on pier
1.41 t 0.12 t
FL on pier 0.35 t 0.03 t

For pier cap,
Width of pier cap 3.65 m 3.65 m
Depth of pier cap 2.00 m 2.00 m
A1 7.30 m2 7.30 m2
t/b = 1.61 (As per table 6)
18354 N 18320.1 N
So, FT on pier cap
1.87 t 1.87 t
FL on pier cap 0.47 t 0.47 t
114
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
(h) 2. in Longitudinal Direction
With POT-PTFE LWL condition HFL condition

Wind force on superstructure 13.37 t 13.35 t
Total long. Force 13.37 t 13.35 t
µ1 0.05
µ2 0.03
Frictional force on free bearing μ2(Rg) 14.55 t 14.55 t
Frictional force on fixed bearing Fh-μ2(Rg) -1.18 t -1.18 t
Fh/2+μ1(Rg+Rq) 36.54 t 36.54 t
Fh 13.37 t 13.35 t
* Force on free bearing is acting opposite to the force on fixed bearing, hence ignored to be on
conservative side.
Thus, max force on a pier 36.54 t 36.54 t

LONGITUDINAL WIND FORCE Force (t) Lever Moment Force (t) Lever Moment
arm (m) (tm) arm (m) (tm)
Horizontal Force 36.54 9.07 331.25 36.54 9.07 331.25
on Pier cap 0.47 7.57 3.54 0.47 7.57 3.53
on Pier 0.35 3.28 1.16 0.03 6.28 0.19
Total longitudinal Wind force 37.36 335.94 37.04 334.97

TRANSVERSE WIND FORCE Force (t) Lever Moment Force (t) Lever Moment
DUE TO arm (m) (tm) arm (m) (tm)
Live Load 15.57 13.92 216.67 15.54 13.92 216.27
Superstructure (43 m span) 18.96 11.04 209.32 18.93 11.04 208.93
Superstructure (43 m span) 18.96 11.04 209.32 18.93 11.04 208.93
Pier cap 1.87 7.57 14.15 1.87 7.57 14.13
Pier 1.41 3.28 4.62 0.12 6.28 0.76
Total transverse Wind force 41.20 654.08 39.84 649.03
(h) 3. Summary of Wind Forces & its Moment
LWL condition Force (t) Moment HFL condition Force (t) Moment
(tm ) (tm)
Transverse Direction 41.20 654.08 Transverse Direction 39.84 649.03
Longitudinal Direction 37.36 335.94 Longitudinal Direction 37.04 334.97
Vertical Direction (+/-) 62.23 - Vertical Direction (+/-) 62.12 -
115
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
2. SUMMARY OF FORCES AT PIER BASE (THREE LANE TRAFFIC)
LOAD V HL HT Torsion MT ML
(Ton) (Ton) (Ton) (t-m) (t-m)
DL (including pier and pier cap) 965.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 189.7 0.0
SIDL 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0
SURFACING 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0
FPLL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
HORIZONTAL FORCE (NORMAL 0.0 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 359.7
CONDITION)
SEIS. TRANS 0.0 0.0 128.8 0.0 1336.2 0.0
SEIS. LONG 0.0 154.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1329.4
SEIS. VERT 105.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
WIND WITHOUT LL (LWL) 82.2 37.7 54.4 0.0 577.8 338.1
WIND WITHOUT LL( HFL) 75.1 37.2 48.2 0.0 523.5 336.4
WIND LL 62.2 37.4 41.2 0.0 654.1 335.9
LL (Max V / MAX MT Case) 165.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 342.4 77.3
LL (Max ML Case) 140.8 0.0 10.9 0.0 463.7 78.9
TEMP. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
BARGE IMPACT 0.0 0.0 688.8 0.0 6095.9 0.0
DIFF. SETTLEMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PRESTRESS EFFECTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SHRINKAGE & CREEP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF FOUNDATION USING WORKING STRSS METHOD
3.1 Coefficient of Earth Pressure

As Per Coulomb’s Theory, Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure is
Where
Φ= Angle of Internal Friction of Earth

α= Angle of Inclination of Back of Wall
δ= Angle of Internal Friction between Wall & Earth
β= Angle of Inclination of Backfill
Here Φ= 33 ° = 0.576 Radian
α= 90 ° = 1.571 Radian
δ= 22.00 ° = 0.384 Radian
116
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
β = 0 ° = 0.000 Radian
Ka = 0.2645
Kp = 8.084
Therefore, Horizontal coefficient of = KaCOSδ = Kha = 0.2452
Active earth pressure
3.2 Design of Circular Well Foundation
3.2.1 Basic Design Data
C/C Distance of Piers 43.00 m

FRL 74.37 m
Ground/Bed Level 66.50 m
Founding Level 34.00 m
Highest Flood Level 68.50 m
Low Water Level 61.00 m
Maximum Scour Level 53.00 m
For Combinations with Seismic Forces

Scour Level Under Mean Flood (as per IRC:78-2014) 54.55 m
Scour Level Under L.W.L. (as per IRC:78-2014) 56.10 m
Depth of Superstructure (@ support location) 2.750 m

Thickness of Wearing Coat 0.050 m
Bearing Level 71.57 m
CG of Bearing Pad 71.97 m
Pier Cap Top Level 71.07 m
Depth of Pier Cap 2.00 m
Bottom of Pier Cap 69.07 m
Top of Pier 69.07 m
Top of Well Cap Level 62.50 m
Dia. of Pier 2.25 m

Width of Pier for Water Current Forces 2.25 m
Eccentricity of Pier w.r.t. Well in Transverse Dir 0.000 m

Eccentricity of Pier W.r.t. Well in Longitudinal Dir 0.000 m
3.2.2 Well Dimensions
Level, Where Dia of Well Changes (Above M.s.l.) 54.55 m

Diameter of Well (Above M.s.l.) 6.00 m
Diameter of Well (Below M.s.l.) 6.00 m
117
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Well Cap Thickness 1.50 m

Projection of Curb Outside Steining 0.075 m
Sinking Depth, L 28.50 m

Steining Thickness Required 0.961 m
Steining Thickness Provided 1.000 m
Angle of Curb 36.55 degree
Height of Curb 1.750 m
Net Downward Load of Well (Hfl Case) 770.0 t
Net Downward Load of Well (Lwl Case) 1031.8 t
3.3 Load from Superstructure
MAX ML CASE MAX. LOAD CASE

DL, SIDL & Substr. 1035.3 1035.3
Wearing Coat 100.0 100.0
DL, SIDL, WC & Substr. 1135.3 1135.3
Live Load (including FPLL)
Vertical Reaction (t) 140.8 165.0
Long Moment due to DL, SIDL, WC & Substr. (t-m) 0.0 0.0
Long Moment due LL & FPLL (t-m) 78.9 77.3
Total Longitudinal Moment (t-m) 78.9 77.3
Trans. Moment due to DL, SIDL MT (t-m) 206.3 206.3
Trans. Moment due to WC MT (t-m) 23.7 23.7
Trans. Moment due to LL & FPLL MT (t-m) 774.8 706.9
Braking Tractive Force Fh (t) 22.8 22.8
Horizontal Force 39.7 39.7
Moment In Long. Direc., ML (due to Fh) (t-m) 1490.8 1490.8
Horizontal Force due to barge impact (t) 688.8 688.8
Transverse Moment at founding level (t-m) 25726.9 25726.9
3.4 Water Current Forces (HFL Case)
V2 at Surface 15.905
Height of Water above M.s.l 15.500 m
V2 at Bottom of Pier Cap & Top of Pier 0.000
V2 at Top of Well Cap 9.748
Total Horiz. Force Due to Water Current (Trans Dir.) 15.48 t
Total Moment at Found. Level (Trans Dir.) 430.17 t-m
118
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Seismic Case with Mean Water Current Forces (Mean Flood Case)
Mean Flood Level (Mfl) = 68.50 m

(Mfl is Assumed at Hfl, on Conservative Side)
V2 at Surface 15.90
Total Moment at Found. Level (Trans Dir.) 375.58 tm
3.5 Seismic Forces
3.5.1 In Longitudinal Direction (100%L + 30%T + 30%V)
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient in Longitudinal Direction, ah 0.136

Scour Level in L.w.l. Case (0.9 Times the Msl) 54.55 m
Considering Ll in Seismic Case 20%
Longitudinal Seismic Force Service
Condi.
Braking Force 4.554 t
on Superstructure & Substructure 154.40 t
on Well Cap 14.42 t
on Well Steining (Upto Msl) 34.45 t
on Well Steining L.w.l. Case 26.17 t
on Water Inside Steining 8.89 t
on Sandfill Inside Steining 0.00 t
on Top Plug 0.00 t
Moment at Founding Level Due to Seis. Force on
Braking Force 201.7 t-m
Superstructure & Substructure 5729.7 t-m
Well Cap 400.2 t-m
Steining 819.0 t-m
Water Inside Steining 211.3 t-m
Total Hydrodynamic Force 33.89 t
its Moment at Founding Level 869.74 tm
Total Force in Longitudinal Dir. (Including Braking & Hydrodynamic 250.6 t
Force)
30% Transverse Seismic Force 62.0 t
Total Moment at Founding Level in Longitudinal Direction 8231.6 t-m
Moment at Founding Level Due to Seismic in Trans. Direction 2109.4 t-m
Increase in Vertical Load 41.6 t
119
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.5.2 in Transverse Direction (100%T + 30%L + 30%V)
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient in Transverse Direction, ah 0.110

Considering Seismic Force on Ll in Trans Direction on 20%
Maximum Live Load Reaction 33.0 t
Seismic Force on Ll 3.64 t
Trans. Seismic Force on Superstr. & Substr. 128.82 t
Well Cap 11.69 t
Steining 27.93 t
Water Inside Steining 7.21 t
its Moment at Founding Level 705.19 tm
Total Force in Transverse Dir. (Including Hydrodynamic Force) 206.8 t
30% Longitudinal Seismic Force (Including 20% Braking & 78.4 t
Hydrodynamic Force)
Total Moment at Founding Level in Transverse Direction 7031.5 tm
Moment at Founding Level Due to Seismic in Long. Direction 2610.7 tm
(Including Braking & Hydrodynamic Force)
3.6 Passive Relief
Depth of Tension Crack (2c/γ Ka0.5) 0.0 m

Grip Length below M.s.l. in Normal Case 19.00 m
Grip Length below M.s.l. in Seismic Case 20.55 m
Coefficient factor for circular well for passive relief 1
Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure, Ka for Normal Case 0.264

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure, Ka for Seismic Case 0.264
Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure, Kp 8.084
120
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Normal Case
Height of Earth 19.00 m
F. O. S. 2.0
Net Forces and Moment of Lateral Resistance Force Moment
(0.5gsub(Kp-Ka)cosd.h2.D/F.O.S.) (t) (tm)
Rectangle component due to Active Earth Pressure (2) 0.0 0.00
Rectangle component due to Passive Earth Pressure (3) 0.0 0.00
Tri. Comp. due to AEP (1) & PEP (4) {(4)-(1)} 3926.1 24865.3
3926.1 24865.3
Moment due to Vertical Component of Active & Passive Earth 0.0
Pressure
Net Force of Lateral Resistance 3926.1 t

Moment Due to Passive Relief (Pr) 24865.3 tm
Seismic Case
Height of Earth 20.550 m
F. O. S. 1.6
Net Forces and Moment of Lateral Resistance Force Moment
(0.5gsub(Kp-Ka)cosd.h2.D/F.O.S.) (t) (tm)
Rectangle component due to Active Earth Pressure (2) 0.0 0.00
Rectangle component due to Passive Earth Pressure (3) 0.0 0.00
Tri. Comp. due to AEP (1) & PEP (4) {(4)-(1)} 5741.0 39325.9
5741.0 39325.9
Moment due to Vertical Component of Active & Passive Earth 0.0
Pressure
Net Force of Lateral Resistance 5741.0 t
Moment Due to Passive Relief (Pr) 39325.9 tm
3.7 Geo-Technical Design of Foundations using Working stress method-IRC:78
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3

Basic Combination Seismic Accidental
Loads Wind + LL - -
DL & SIDL 1 1 1
Surfacing 1 1 1
Live load 1 0.2 1
Seismic force - 1 -
Water Current 1 1 -
Wind 1 - -
Thermal - 1
Settlement 1 1 -
121
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Barge Impact - - 1
Prestress Effects - - -
3.8 Moment Due to Tilt and Shift
TILT (1 IN 80) 0.356 m

SHIFT (150mm) 0.150 m
DESCRIPTION (MAX. LD & LWL CASE
CONSIDERED)
W1=Net Dnward Ld on Top of Well 1300.3 t
Moment about C.l. of Well (Due to W1) 658.3 tm
W2=Net Downward Load of Well 1031.8 t
Total Moment about C.l. of Well (Due to W2) 183.8 tm
Total Moment Due to Tilt and Shift 842.0 tm
3.9 Summary of Loads & Moments
3.9.1 HFL Wind Case (LC-1)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
Downward Load t 2108.3 2132.5
Moment in Longitudinal Direction t-m 1479.6 1478.0
Moment in Transverse Direction t-m 3263.2 3195.4
Resulant Mom. (MR) (including tilt & shift) t-m 4456.5 4394.2
Passive Relief (PR) t-m 31081.6 31081.6
Net Moment (MR - PR) t-m 0.0 0.0
Maximum Base Pressure t/m2 71.0 71.8
Minimum Base Pressure t/m2 71.0 71.8
3.9.2 LWL Wind Case (LC-1)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
122
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
As plastic moment is dependent on sectional capacity, it is assumed that section is
designed for exact requirement. Hence the seismic moment and shear at the base is
multiplied by overstrength factor to simplify the process.
Factored loads after multiplying over strength factor of 1.35
3.9.3 Seismic Longitudinal With LWL Case (LC-2)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
Downward Load (with 20% live load) t 2236.7 2241.6
3.9.4 Seismic Longitudinal With Mean Flood Level (LC-2)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
Moment In Longitudinal Direction t-m 11128.5 11128.1
Moment In Transverse Direction t-m 2870.0 2856.4
3.9.5 Seismic Transverse With Lwl Case (LC-2)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
123
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
3.9.6 Seismic Transverse With Mean Flood Level (LC-2)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
3.9.7 Barge Impact With HFL (LC-3)
MAX ML MAX. LD
CASE CASE
3.10 Summary of Base Pressure
Absolute Maximum in Wind Case 80.6 t/m2 < 89.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Wind Case 71.0 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Maximum in Seismic Case 75.5 t/m2 < 89.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Seismic Case 66.5 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Maximum in Barge Impact Case 69.7 t/m2 < 89.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Barge Impact Case 68.9 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
4. Geotechnical Design Of Foundation Using Limit State Method
4.1 Coefficient of Earth Pressure (For Set 1)

As per Coulomb’s theory, coefficient of active earth pressure is
124
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Where
δ= Angle of Internal Friction Between Wall & Earth
Here
Φ= 33° = 0.576 Radian

α= 90° = 1.571 Radian
δ= 22.00° = 0.384 Radian
β= 0° = 0.000 Radian
Ka = 0.2645
Kp = 8.084
Therefore, Horizontal coefficient KaCOSδ = Kha = 0.2452
of Active earth pressure
Kpa = 7.4956
4.2 Coefficient of Earth Pressure (For Set 2)

As per Coulomb’s theory, coefficient of active earth pressure is
Where
δ= Angle of Internal Friction Between Wall & Earth
Here,
Φ= 27.45° = 0.479 Radian

α= 90° = 1.571 Radian
δ= 18.30° = 0.319 Radian
β= 0° = 0.000 Radian
Ka = 0.3282
125
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Kp = 4.929
Therefore, Horizontal coefficient = KaCOSδ = Kha = 0.3116
of Active earth pressure
Kpa = 4.6797
4.3 Calculation of passive resistance for limit state design of well

Angle of Shearing Resistance (φ) = 33 °
Submerged density of soil = 1 t/m3
Outer diameter of Well = 6 m
Embedded length of Well = 19 m (Normal Case)
Embedded length of Well = 20.6 m (Seismic Case)
As per Table 2, (of Limit Sate Design of Open Foundation)
Design angle of shearing Resistance, φ1 = tan-1 ((Tanφ)/γm)
For Set 1, γm = 1
Therefore φ1= 33 °
For Set 2, γm = 1.25
Therefore φ1= 27.45 °
Now, for calculating the Passive Resistance as per Table B4 of IRC 6:2017, Set 1 factors are
used for LC-1, LC-2 and Set 2 factors are used for LC-3, LC-4, LC-5, LC-6.
FOR LC-1, LC-2

Kha = 0.245
Khp = 7.496
Force of Passive Resistance = 7719.4 t 0.5 x 1 (7.496 - 0.245 x 1.5) x 19 x 19 x 6
Total Resisting Moment = 48889.7 tm
Allowable Resisting Moment = 48889.7 tm
FOR LC-3, LC-4
Kha = 0.312
Khp = 4.680
Force of Passive Resistance = 3869.3 t 0.5 x 1 (4.68 x 0.85 - 0.312 x 1.3) x 19 x 19 x 6
FOR LC-5A, 5B
Kha = 0.312
Khp = 4.680
Force of Passive Resistance = 5534.1 t 0.5 x 1 (4.68 - 0.312) x 20.55 x 20.55 x 6
126
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
FOR LC-6
Kha = 0.312
Khp = 4.680
Force of Passive Resistance = 4730.7 t 0.5 x 1 (4.68 - 0.312) x 19 x 19 x 6
Load Definition:
LC-1 L.L. Leading +Wind Load Acc. _LWL/HFL Case (Action Combination 1)
LC-2 L.L. Acc +Wind Load Leading _LWL/HFL Case
LC-3 L.L. Leading +Wind Load Acc. _LWL/HFL Case (Action Combination 2)
LC-4 L.L. Acc +Wind Load Leading _LWL/HFL Case
LC-5A Seismic Long. + 30% Seismic Trans. + 30% Seismic Vert (+v)_LWL/HFL Case
LC-5B 30% Seismic Long. + Seismic Trans. + 30% Seismic Vert (+v)_LWL/HFL Case
LC-6 Accidental Combination
4.4 Design of Circular Well Foundation
4.4.1 Basic design data
C/C Distance of Piers 43.00 m

Frl 74.37 m
Ground/Bed Level 66.50 m
Founding Level 34.00 m
Highest Flood Level 68.50 m
Low Water Level 61.00 m
Maximum Scour Level 53.00 m
For combinations with seismic forces

Scour Level Under Mean Flood (as per IRC:78) 54.55 m
Scour Level Under L.W.L. (as per IRC:78) 56.10 m
Depth of Superstructure (@ support location) 2.750 m

Thickness of Wearing Coat 0.050 m
Bearing Level 71.57 m
Cg of Bearing Pad 71.97 m
Pier Cap Top Level 71.07 m
Depth of Pier Cap 2.00 m
Bottom of Pier Cap 69.07 m
Top of Pier 69.07 m
Top of Well Cap Level 62.50 m
127
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Dia. of Pier 2.25 m

Width of Pier for Water Current Forces 2.25 m
Eccentricity of Pier w.r.t. Well in Transverse Dir 0.000 m

Eccentricity of Pier w.r.t. Well in Longitudinal Dir 0.000 m
4.4.2 Well dimensions
Level, where Dia of Well Changes (Above M.s.l.) 54.55 m

Diameter of Well (Above M.s.l.) 6.00 m
Diameter of Well (Below M.s.l.) 6.00 m
Well Cap Thickness 1.50 m
Projection of Curb Outside Steining 0.075 m
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient, ah X 1.35 0.136 Longitudinal

Direction
0.110 Transverse
Direction
Max. Surface Velocity Of Water, V ( Design Velocity) 2.82 x √2 3.99 m/sec
Sinking Depth, L 28.50 m

Steining Thickness Required 0.961 m
Steining Thickness Provided 1.000 m
Angle of Curb 36.55 degree
Height of Curb 1.750 m
Dead Load of Well
Net Downward Load of Well (Hfl Case) 770.0 t
Net Downward Load of Well (Lwl Case) 1031.8 t
4.5 Load From Superstructure
MAX ML CASE MAX. LOAD CASE

DL, SIDL & SUBSTR. 1035.3 1035.3
Wearing Coat 100.0 100.0
DL, SIDL, WC & SUBSTR. 1135.3 1135.3
LIVE LOAD (including FPLL)
Vertical Reaction (t) 140.8 165.0
Long Moment due to DL, SIDL, WC & Substr. (t-m) 0.0 0.0
Long Moment due LL & FPLL (t-m) 78.9 77.3
Total Longitudinal Moment (t-m) 78.9 77.3
Trans. Moment due to DL, SIDL MT (t-m) 206.3 206.3
128
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Trans. Moment due to WC MT (t-m) 23.7 23.7

Trans. Moment due to LL & FPLL MT (t-m) 774.8 706.9
Braking Tractive Force Fh (t) 22.8 22.8
Horizontal Force 39.7 39.7
Moment In Long. Direc., ML (due to Fh) (t-m) 1490.8 1490.8
Horizontal Force due to barge impact (t) 688.8 688.8
Transverse Moment at founding level (t-m) 25726.9 25726.9
4.6 Water Current Forces (Hfl Case)
V2 at Surface 15.905
Total Moment at Found. Level (Trans Dir.) 430.17 t-m
Seismic Case With Mean Water Current Forces (Mean Flood Case)
Mean Flood Level (Mfl) = 68.50 m
(Mfl is Assumed at Hfl, on Conservative Side)
V2 at Surface 15.90

Total Moment at Found. Level (Trans Dir.) 375.58 tm
4.7 Seismic Forces
4.7.1 In Longitudinal Direction (100%L + 30%T + 30%V)
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient In Longitudinal Direction, ah 0.136

Scour Level in L.w.l. Case (0.9 Times The Msl) 54.55 m
Considering Ll in Seismic Case 20%
Longitudinal Seismic Force SERVICE
CONDI.
Braking Force 4.554 t
On Superstructure & Substructure 154.40 t
On Well Cap 14.42 t
On Well Steining (Upto Msl) 34.45 t
On Well Steining L.w.l. Case 26.17 t
On Water Inside Steining 8.89 t
129
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Moment at Founding Level due to Seis. Force on

Braking Force 201.7 t-m
Superstructure & Substructure 5729.7 t-m
Well Cap 400.2 t-m
Steining 819.0 t-m
Water Inside Steining 211.3 t-m
Its Moment at Founding Level 869.74 tm
Total Force in Longitudinal Dir. (including braking & hydrodynamic 250.6 t
force)
30% Transverse Seismic Force 62.0 t
Total Moment at Founding Level in Longitudinal Direction 8231.6 t-m
Moment at Founding Level Due to Seismic in Trans. Direction 2109.4 t-m
4.7.2 In Transverse Direction (100%T + 30%L + 30%V)
Horizontal Seismic Coefficient in Transverse Direction, ah 0.110

Seismic Force on Ll 3.64 t
Trans. Seismic Force on Superstr. & Substr. 128.82 t
Well Cap 11.69 t
Steining 27.93 t
Water Inside Steining 7.21 t
Moment at Founding Level Due to Seis. Force on Ll 158.8 t-m

Superstructure & Substr. 5007.7 tm
Well Cap 324.4 tm
Steining 664.0 tm
Water Inside Steining 171.3 tm
Its Moment at Founding Level 705.19 tm
Total Force in Transverse Dir. (Including Hydrodynamic Force) 206.8 t

30% Longitudinal Seismic Force (Including 20% Braking & 78.4 t
Hydrodynamic Force)
Total Moment at Founding Level in Transverse Direction 7031.5 tm
Moment at Founding Level Due to Seismic in Long. Direction 2610.7 tm
(Including Braking & Hydrodynamic Force)
Base Area 29.706 m2

Section Modulus 22.836 m3
130
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
Table B.4 Table (IRC:

B.3 6-2017)
LC-1 LC-2 LC-3 LC-4 LC-5A, 5B LC-6 LC-7
Combination-1 Combination-2 Seismic Accidental Quasi
Loads LL Wind LL Wind - - -
Lead Lead Lead Lead
DL & SIDL 1.35 1.35 1 1 1.35 1 1
Surfacing 1.75 1.75 1 1 1.75 1 1.2
Live load 1.5 1.15 1.3 1 0.2 0.75 -
Seismic force - - - - 1.5 - -
Water Current 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Wind 0.9 1.5 0.8 1.3 - - -
Thermal - 0.5 0.5
Settlement 1 1 1 1 1 - 1
Barge Impact - - - - - 1 -
Prestress - - - - - - -
Effects
4.9 Moment Due to Tilt and Shift
Tilt (1 In 80) 0.356 m

Shift (150mm) 0.150 m
Description (Max. Ld & Lwl Case (Factored
Considered) loads)
For LC- For LC- For For For
1, LC-2 3, LC-4 LC-5 LC-5 LC-5
W1=Net Dnward Ld on Top of Well 1820.1 1349.8 1605.6 1259.0 1155.3 t
Moment about C.l. of Well (Due to W1) 921.4 683.3 812.8 637.4 584.8 tm
W2=Net Downward Load of Well 1392.9 1031.78 1392.90 1031.78 1031.78 t
Total Moment about C.l. of Well (Due to W2) 248.1 183.8 248.1 183.8 183.8 tm
Total Moment Due to Tilt and Shift 1169.5 867.1 1060.9 821.2 768.6 tm
4.10 Summary of Loads & Moments
4.10.1 Load Combination 1
(a) HFL Wind Case (LC-2) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

with wind leading
131
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

(b) LWL Wind Case (LC-2) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

with wind leading
(C) HFL Wind Case (LC-1) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

with live load leading
Net Moment (MR - PR) 0.0 0.0
(d) LWL Wind Case (LC-1) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

132
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4.10.2 Load Combination 2
(a) HFL Wind Case (LC-4) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

with wind leading
(b) LWL WIND CASE (LC-4) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

with wind leading
Moment In Longitudinal Direction t-m 1899.8 1898.2
(C) HFL WIND CASE (LC-3) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

Net Moment (MR - PR) 0.0 0.0
(d) LWL WIND CASE (LC-3) MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

133
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

As plastic moment is dependent on sectional capacity, it is assumed that section is designed for
exact requirement. Hence the seismic moment and shear at the base is multiplied by overstrength
factor to simplify the process.
Factored loads after multiplying over strength factor of 1.35
4.10.3 Seismic Longitudinal With LWL Case (LC-5A)
MAX ML CASE MAX. LD CASE

4.10.4 Seismic Longitudinal with Mean Flood Level (LC-5A)

4.10.5 Seismic Transverse With Lwl Case (LC-5B)

134
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

4.10.6 Seismic Transverse With Mean Flood Level (LC-5B)

RESULANT MOM. (MR) (including tilt & shift) t-m 16685.6 16672.4
PASSIVE RELIEF (PR) t-m 37908.4 37908.4
NET MOMENT (MR - PR) t-m 0.0 0.0
MAXIMUM BASE PRESSURE t/m2 91.0 91.1
MINIMUM BASE PRESSURE t/m2 91.0 91.1
4.10.7 Barge Impact With HFL (LC-6)

4.10.8 SLS-Quasi Permanent LWL (LC-7)

135
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
4.11 Summary of Base Pressure
Absolute Maximum in Wind Case 110.0 t/m2 < 426.92 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Wind Case 71.6 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Maximum in Seismic Case 103.0 t/m2 < 469.61 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Seismic Case 91.0 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Maximum in Barge Impact Case 68.3 t/m2 < 469.61 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Barge Impact Case 67.7 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
Absolute Maximum in Quasi Permanent 73.6 t/m2 < 469.61 Hence Safe
Absolute Minimum in Quasi Permanent 73.6 t/m2 > 0.00 Hence Safe
5. Bearing Capacity For Soil (As per IS: 6403):-
qd cN c sc dcic  q( Nq 1 )sq dqiq  .5B N s d i W


Dia of well (m) = 6

Depth of foundation (Df) m = 19 (MSL-FND)
Depth of water Table (Dw) m = 0 from ground level.
Cohesion (c) kN/m2 = 0
Angle of Resistance (φ) = 33.00
Surcharge (q) (kN/m2) = 171
(γ1) bulk kN/m3 = 20

Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity = 9526.23 kN/m2
Shape Factor Depth Factor Inclination Factor

Type Sc sq sγ dc dq dγ i iq iγ
Circular 1.300 1.200 0.600 2.17 1.58 1.58 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bearing capacity factor

Nc Nq Nγ Nφ
39.73 27.34 37.78 3.39
Summary for Net Bearing Capacity:
DIAMETER OF WELL (φ) Net BC (t/m2)

6.00 33.00 971.07 Action comb. 1, Set-
6.00 27.45 469.61 Action comb. 2, Set-2
6.00 27.45 469.61 Seismic and Accidental Case
136
IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020
6. COMPARISION AND SUMMARY OF FOS OF WSM AND LSM
Working Stress Method
Load Combination Allowable Moment Allowable Resistance FOS

tm tm
LC1 (Wind) 24865 49730 2
LC2 (Seismic), LC3 39325 62920 1.6
Limit State Method
Load Combination Allowable Moment Allowable Resistance FOS

tm tm
LC1, LC2 48890 49730 1.02
(Wind, combination 1)
LC3, LC4 24505 49730 2.03
(Wind, combination 2)
LC5 (Seismic) 37908 62920 1.66
LC6 (Accidental) 29961 49730 1.66
137

IRC 78 Part-2-2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRC 78 Part-2-2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

IRC 78 Part-2-2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRC:78 (Part-2)-2020

INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced,

Appendix-2 Introduction for the Worked Out Examples 48

2 Honorary Treasurer, (Pandey, I.K.)

Sharma, R.S. …… Convenor

Garg, Sanjay Rana, Dr. Sanjay

Rd Design value of resistance

ULS Ultimate Limit State

2. Design Philosophy and Verifications under Ultimate and

2.1 Design Philosophy

2.2.1 Verification under ultimate limit state

Fig. 1 Failure of Shallow Foundations

Fig. 2 Failure of Reinforced Concrete retaining wall

2.2.2 Verification under serviceability limit state

3.1 Check for loss of equilibrium:

3.1.1 Verifications against overturning and overall stability

Soil Parameter Symbol Partial Factors

Note: Design angle of shearing resistance = φ1= tan-1(tanφ/γm)

3.1.2 Verification against sliding

3.2 Verification for Bearing Resistance

3.2.1 Partial factor for loads and combination of loads

3.2.2 Partial factor on materials

Soil Parameter Symbol Set 1 Set 2

unconfined compressive strength γqu 1.0 1.4

Note: Design angle of shearing resistance = φ1= tan-1(tanφ/γm)

3.2.3 Calculation of bearing pressure for foundations resting on Soil:

REDUCED EFFECTIVE AREA L

POINT OF LOAD APPLICATION ULS PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

Reduced Footing Dimensions ULS Pressure Distribution

Fig. 3 Double Axes Eccentricity Fig. 4 Single Axis Eccentricity

Table 3 Area of Contact

e/d 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.20

3.2.4 Calculation of Bearing Pressure on Rock

3.2.5 Calculation of bearing pressure for structural design of foundation

3.2.6 Calculation of allowable bearing capacity. (Resistance)

3.3 Verification of Uplift Limit State

3.4 Verification of Serviceability Limit State

3.4.1 Verification of contact area of base and bearing pressure

3.4.3 Differential settlement

3.5 Special Vehicle (SV) Loading

3.5.2 Method of Verification

4.2 Loads and Load Combinations

S. No. Combination Set

4.4 Ultimate Limit States Verifications

4.5 Calculation of Pile Capacity of Piles Resting on Soil

Table 6 Correlation Factor for obtaining the Characteristic Capacity of Pile

4.5.3 Calculation of Pile capacity from static load tests:

Table 7 Correlation Factors for Obtaining the Characteristic Capacity of

No. of tests ≥2 ≥5 ≥10 Remarks

4.5.6 Negative skin friction

4.6 Group Action of Piles

4.6.1 Piles subjected to compressive loads

4.6.2 Piles subjected to negative skin friction

4.7.1 Behavior of pile foundation resting on Rock:

4.7.2 Socketing length for pile

4.7.4 Allowable load on pile from static load tests

4.7.5 Allowable displacement under allowable load for rare combination

4.7.6 Verification of pile capacity under ultimate loads

4.7.7 Load test on piles