CE 481

CE 481
Shallow Foundations
Lecture Notes
Prepared By
J.S. DeNatale, Ph.D., P.E.

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Academic Year 2009-10

Contents
11. Site Investigation

12. Foundation Design: General Considerations
13. Bearing Capacity
14. Elastic Settlement
15. Consolidation Settlement
16. Boussinesq Stress Increment Calculations
17. Rate of Consolidation
18. Creep
19. Controlling Settlement
20. Reinforced Concrete Spread Footing Design
Appendix A: Typical PE Exam Problems
Appendix B: Assignments and Solutions
BASIC MASS-VOLUME RELATIONS
(Definitions and Limits or Typical Values
Term Symbol Basic Definition Limits or Typical Values
Water Content w (Mw / Ms) (100%) 0≤w≤∞%
Density of Solids ρs Ms / Vs 2.60 ~ 2.75 Mg/m3
Density of Water ρw Mw / Vw 1.00 Mg/m3
Dry Density ρd or ρdry Ms / Vt
Moist Density ρt Mt / Vt ρdry ≤ ρt ≤ ρsat
Saturated Density ρsat (Ms + ρwVv) / Vt
Submerged Density ρsub ρt - ρw ≈ ρsat - ρw
2.60 ~ 2.65 (gravel/sand)

Specific Gravity G or Gs ρs / ρw 2.65 ~ 2.70 (silt)
2.70 ~ 2.75 (clay)
Void Ratio e Vv / Vs 0≤e≤∞
Porosity n (Vv / Vt) (100%) 0 ≤ n ≤ 100 %
Degree of Saturation S (Vw / Vv) (100%) 0 ≤ S ≤ 100 %

SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE RELATIONS
(for Efficient Determination of Unit Weights and/or Densities)
Term British Units (pcf) SI Units (Mg/m3 = g/cm3)
G or ρs G = Se / w ρs = Seρw / w
w w = Se / G w = Seρw / ρs
e e = wG / S e = wρs / Sρw
S S = wG / e S = wρs / eρw
e e = n / (1 - n) e = n / (1 - n)
n n = e / (1 + e) n = e / (1 + e)
Key Compaction Relations
γd or ρd γd = Gγw / [1 + (wG / S)] ρd = Sρsρw / (Sρw + wρs)
w w = S (Gγw - γd) / Gγd w = S (ρsρw - ρdρw) / (ρdρs)
S S = wGγd / (Gγw - γd) S = wρdρs / (ρsρw - ρdρw)
Key Unit Weight and Density Relations for Stress Calculations
γd or ρd γd = Gγw / (1 + e) = γt / (1 + w) ρd = ρs / (1 + e) = ρt / (1 + w)
γt or ρt γt = (G + Se) γw / (1 + e) ρt = (ρs + Seρw) / (1 + e)
γsat or ρsat γsat = (G + e) γw / (1 + e) = γd + nγw ρsat = (ρs + eρw) / (1 + e) = ρd + nρw

SHALLOW vs DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Figure 12.1: Shallow vs Deep Foundations
12-1
FOUNDATION DESIGN
General Areas of Consideration
Stability
Constructibility
Economic Feasibility
STABILITY
Specific Considerations
1. Geotechnical Stability
A. Local Shear Failure (Bearing Failure)
B. Extensive or General Shear Failure (Slope Failure)
C. Settlement and/or Heave
1. Immediate Settlement
2. Consolidation Settlement
3. Creep
4. Frost-Induced
5. Moisture-Induced (check Expansion Index, EI)
2. Structural Stability
A. Shear Failure
1. Internal
2. Interface (Pull-Out)
B. Compressive Failure (Crushing) of the Concrete
C. Tensile Failure (Yielding) of the Reinforcing Steel
D. Elastic Deformation
12-2
REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING DESIGN
Sequence of Considerations
Step 1:
Consideration of Geotechnical Stability to Establish:
Footprint (Width B and Length L)

Embedment Depth D
Step 2:
Consideration of Structural Stability to Establish:
Strength of Materials fc′ (Concrete) and fy (Steel)

Effective Depth d
Bar Size (Bar #)
Bar Spacing s
Total Number of Bars N
Footing Thickness t
REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING DESIGN

Plans and Specifications
12-3
This Page is Intentionally Left Blank
12-4
BEARING CAPACITY of SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
The bearing capacity of a soil is simply the contact stress required to produce
plastic failure (plastic flow or yielding) in that foundation soil. The bearing
capacity of a soil is related to the shear strength of that soil as well as certain
characteristics of the foundation element and loading.
In determining the minimum plan dimensions or optimal “footprint” of a shallow

foundation, the geotechnical engineer must check for adequate stability with
respect to bearing-type failure. This check generally involves comparing the
actual contact stress at the base of the proposed foundation element to either
the ultimate bearing capacity or the allowable bearing stress. To avoid
failure by yielding, the actual contact stress must be less than the ultimate
bearing capacity. To ensure that there is an appropriate factor of safety with
respect to yielding, the actual contact stress must be no greater than the
allowable bearing stress.
In geotechnical practice, the check for adequate stability with respect to bearing-
type failure may be accomplished by means of either
1. a rigorous geotechnical analysis which involves: (a) mobilization of field

drilling and sampling equipment for the purpose of acquiring
undisturbed samples of the proposed foundation soil; (b) determination
of the soil’s shear strength parameters (cohesion c and internal friction
angle φ) through appropriate field or laboratory testing; and
(c) computation of ultimate bearing capacity with the aid of some
acceptable, rationally-derived equation; or
2. a simplified code-based analysis which involves: (a) acquisition of a

disturbed or “grab” sample of the foundation soil; (b) determination of
the soil’s grain size distribution (percent gravel, percent sand, and
percent fines) through a laboratory sieve analysis; and (c) computation
of the allowable bearing pressure with the aid of Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Table 18-1-A.
13-1
RIGOROUS METHOD
The earliest theoretical work related to bearing capacity was conducted by

Rankine (for cohesionless soils) and Bell (for materials with both cohesion and
friction). The methods of Rankine and Bell are still used in the analysis of lateral
earth pressure on certain types of support structures. However, these methods
are not suitable for the analysis of bearing capacity.
The foundation of modern bearing capacity theory was laid by Prandtl (1920),
who used plasticity theory to predict the stress at which a rigid strip would punch
through a frictionless material such as a soft metal. Terzaghi (1943) generalized
Prandtl’s work to allow for the analysis of materials with both cohesion and
friction -- that is, real soils. In deriving his bearing capacity equation, Terzaghi
made the following restrictive assumptions:
infinitely long strip footing (L = ∞)

shallow footing (D ≤ B)
horizontal footing base
centric, vertical column load
horizontal ground surface
a relatively stiff foundation soil (that would undergo general shear failure)
Terzaghi’s basic equation for strip footings and commonly accepted variations for
square and circular footings are presented in Table 13.1
The phenomenon of bearing failure in a foundation soil is highly amenable to

study though physical modeling, and there is a relatively large body of
experimental evidence against which modern predictive equations may be
compared. Over the years, numerous individuals have attempted to improve on
Terzaghi’s basic equation. Although the generalizations proposed by Hansen,
Myerhoff, and Vesic during the 1950’s-1970’s have received widespread
acceptance by both the academic and professional communities, there is no
single equation that represents the industry standard.
Over the years, Terzaghi’s original equation has been generalized to permit the
analysis of footings of general shape, depth, and orientation, in soil deposits of
general ground slope angle and stiffness, subjected to a column/overburden load
of general eccentricity and orientation. This generalized equation is of the form:
qult = cNcscdcbcicgcrc + 0.5γ′BNγsγdγbγiγgγrγ + σvD′Nqsqdqbqiqgqrq
13-2
where sc-sγ-sq are the footing shape factors, dc-dγ-dq are the footing depth
factors, bc-bγ-bq are the footing base tilt factors, ic-iγ-iq are the load
eccentricity/inclination factors, gc-gγ-gq are the ground slope factors, and rc-rγ-rq
are the soil rigidity factors. Specific equations for each of these terms are
presented by Hansen, Myerhoff, and Vesic. Summary restatements of much of
this original research may be found in the foundation design texts authored by
Bowles (1996) and Coduto (2001).
It should be noted that the generalized equation reduces to the basic equation
when the actual conditions conform to Terzaghi’s restrictive assumptions.
13-3
Table 13.1: Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Equations
Footprint Bearing Capacity Equation
Infinite Strip qult = 1.0cNc + 0.5γ′BNγ + σvD′Nq
Square qult = 1.3cNc + 0.4γ′BNγ + σvD′Nq
Circular qult = 1.3cNc + 0.3γ′BNγ + σvD′Nq
B = footing width (smallest plan dimension) or diameter

D = footing embedment depth from grade to slab base
c = cohesion
φ = internal friction angle
γ′ = effective unit weight
σvD′ = effective overburden stress at depth D below grade
Nc, Nγ, Nq = bearing capacity factors (functions of φ)
Loading Condition Bearing Capacity Factors
a = e (0.75π - 0.50φ) tanφ

Drained Conditions Nq = a2 / [2 cos2 (45 + 0.5φ)]
(φ > 0) Nc = (Nq - 1)(cot φ)
Nγ ≈ [2 (Nq + 1)(tan φ)] / [1 + 0.4 sin (4φ)]
Nq = 1.0
Undrained Conditions
Nc = 5.7
(φu = 0 and let c = su in the eqns)
Nγ = 0.0
Table 13.2: Values of Terzaghi’s Nc, Nγ, and Nq
φ Nc Nγ Nq φ Nc Nγ Nq
0° 5.70 0.00 1.00 24° 23.4 7.90 11.4
4° 6.97 0.31 1.49 28° 31.6 14.6 17.8
8° 8.60 0.74 2.21 32° 44.0 28.0 28.5
12° 10.8 1.41 3.29 36° 63.5 56.7 47.2
16° 13.7 2.50 4.92 40° 95.7 121 81.3
20° 17.7 4.41 7.44
13-4
Table 13.3: Vesic’s Bearing Capacity Equation
Ultimate Bearing Capacity
qult = cNcscdcbcicgcrc + 0.5γ′BNγsγdγbγiγgγrγ + σvD′Nqsqdqbqiqgqrq
Bearing Capacity Factors Shape Factors
Nc = (Nq - 1)(cot φ) sc = 1 + (B / L)(Nq / Nc)

Nγ = 2 (Nq + 1)(tan φ) sγ = 1 + (B / L)(tan φ)
Nq = [tan2 (45 + 0.5φ)][eπtanφ] sq = 1 - 0.4 (B / L)
Depth Factors Load Inclination Factors
dc = 1 + 0.4 (D / B)
dγ = 1 see Bowles (1996) or Coduto (2001)
dq = 1 + 2 (D / B)(tan φ)(1 - sin φ)2
Base Inclination Factors Ground Inclination Factors
bc = 1 - (α / 147°) gc = 1 - (β / 147°)
2
bγ = bq = [1 - (α tan φ / 57°)] gγ = gq = (1 - tan β)2
α = base tilt angle from horizontal β = ground slope angle from horizontal
Table 13.4: Values of Vesic’s Nc, Nγ, and Nq
φ Nc Nγ Nq φ Nc Nγ Nq
0° 5.14 0.00 1.00 24° 19.3 9.44 9.60
4° 6.19 0.34 1.43 28° 25.8 16.7 14.7
8° 7.53 0.86 2.06 32° 35.5 30.2 23.2
12° 9.28 1.69 2.97 36° 50.6 56.3 37.7
16° 11.6 3.06 4.34 40° 75.3 109 64.2
20° 14.8 5.39 6.40 44° 118 224 115
13-5
ADDITIONAL NOTES
As has been indicated earlier, the basic equations for strip, square, and circular
footings were derived for the common case of a relatively stiff foundation soil. If
the foundation soil is soft (and a highly-localized, punching-type shear zone is
likely to develop at the moment of bearing failure), Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
recommend using reduced values of cohesion and friction in all bearing capacity
computations. Specifically, the authors recommend using 2c/3 in place of c and
with tan-1 [(2/3)(tan φ)] in place of φ.
The unit weight term γ that appears in the second term of the basic and
generalized bearing capacity equations represents the effective unit weight of
the foundation soil in a zone of thickness B below the level of the footing base. If
the groundwater table is located below this zone, the effective unit weight
becomes the total unit weight. If the groundwater table is above this zone (either
at or above the level of the footing base), the effective unit weight becomes the
buoyant or submerged unit weight. If the groundwater table is within this zone, a
weighted average value of effective unit weight should be used:
γ = (B1/B) γt + (B2/B) γb
Figure 13.1: Definition of Terms for Shallow GWT Analysis
13-6
Example 13.1: Effective Unit Weight Calculations
Compute the effective unit weight for use in the second term of the basic and
generalized bearing capacity equations for each of the three groundwater table
(GWT) elevations shown below. The foundation soil is a dirty sand with a void
ratio of 0.50 and a degree of saturation (above the GWT) of 20%. GWT1, GWT2,
and GWT3 are at depths below grade of 16’, 12’, and 2’, respectively. The
footing has a width of 10’ and an embedment depth of 4’.
γ (pcf)
GWT Case nd
(for use in the 2 term of the BC equation)
GWT1
GWT2
GWT3
13-7
UBC METHOD
Table 13.5: UBC Table 18-1-A
Table 13.6: Comparison of UBC and USCS Classifications
Description and Quantitative

UBC Class USCS Symbols
Criteria
Clean Gravels
3 GW, GP
%F < 5% and %G > %S
GM, GC Dirty Gravels and All Sands

4
SW, SP, SM, SC (Not UBC Class 3 or 5)
Inorganic Fine-Grained Soils

5 ML, MH, CL, CH
%F > 50%
13-8
DEFINITIONS USED IN THE UBC METHOD
B = footing width (in plan; B ≤ L)

L = footing length (in plan; B ≤ L)
t = footing (slab) thickness (in profile)
D = footing embedment depth from grade to slab base (generally t ≤ D)
qtab = the allowable bearing stress associated with a 1-ft square and 1-ft deep
footing, as specified in Column 2 of UBC Table 18-1-A
qall = the allowable bearing stress associated with a general size, general depth
footing, as specified in Footnotes 2 and 7 of UBC Table 18-1-A
Figure 13.2: Elevation (Profile) View of a Footing
Table 13.7: Calculation of qallowable (Table 18-1-A Footnotes 2 and 7)
UBC Class Allowable or Safe Bearing Pressure
3 or 4 (footnote 2) qall = [qtab][1 + 0.2(B-1) + 0.2(D-1)] ≤ 3qtab
5 (footnote 7) qall = [qtab][1 + 0.2(D-1)] ≤ 3qtab
Clearly, footing capacity increases with embedment depth. But remember that
increases in depth come at a price: the cost of excavation and compliance with
OSHA Standards (see California Code of Regulations, Sections 1540–1541).
13-9
Table 13.8: UBC Table 18-1-A Validation Study
Rigorous Terzahgi vs Simplified UBC
To Establish the Properties of the Typical UBC Class 3 and Class 4 Soil
B D c φ γ Nq Nc Nγ qult qall
(ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) (pcf) (psf) (psf)
1 1 0 35.97 100 37.59 50.43 56.01 6000 2000
1 1 0 35.28 110 34.47 47.31 50.19 6000 2000
1 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 6000 2000
1 1 0 33.86 100 28.94 41.64 40.17 4500 1500

1 1 0 33.14 110 26.53 39.10 35.95 4500 1500
1 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 4500 1500
13-10
Table 13.9: UBC Table 18-1-A Validation Study
Rigorous Terzaghi Square Footing Analyses
To Establish the Percent Increase Associated with 1-Foot Increases in Footing Width or Depth
B D c φ γ Nq Nc Nγ qult qall Increase

(ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) (pcf) (psf) (psf) (%)
1 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 6000 2000 N/A
2 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 8178 2726 36
3 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 10356 3452 36
4 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 12535 4178 36
5 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 14713 4904 36
6 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 16891 5630 36
1 1 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 6000 2000 N/A

1 2 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 9821 3274 64
1 3 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 13642 4547 64
1 4 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 17463 5821 64
1 5 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 21285 7095 64
1 6 0 34.64 120 31.84 44.64 45.38 25106 8369 64
1 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 4500 1500 N/A

2 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 6058 2019 35
3 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 7617 2539 35
4 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 9175 3058 35
5 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 10734 3578 35
6 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 12292 4097 35
1 1 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 4500 1500 N/A

1 2 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 7441 2480 65
1 3 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 10382 3461 65
1 4 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 13323 4441 65
1 5 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 16264 5421 65
1 6 0 32.47 120 24.51 36.94 32.47 19205 6402 65
13-11
Example 13.2: Rigorous Method
A 6′ by 6′ by 24″ (thick) cast-in-place reinforced concrete footing will be placed

within a 20-foot thick surface layer of clayey sand. The footing will have an
embedment depth of 3 feet. The soil has a cohesion of 200 psf, an internal
friction angle of 28 degrees, and a moist unit weight of 116 pcf. The groundwater
table is at a depth of 16 feet below grade, and there is no capillary rise. Perform
a rigorous analysis to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity and allowable
bearing pressure for these conditions.
Solution:
B = 6 ft, D = 3 ft,
Nc = 31.6, Nγ = 14.6, Nq = 17.8 (Table 1.1 or 1.2)
qult = 1.3cNc + 0.4γBNγ + γDNq
= (1.3)(200 psf)(31.6) + (0.4)(116 pcf)(6 ft)(14.6) + (116 pcf)(3 ft)(17.8)
= (8216 + 4065 + 6194) psf = 18.5 ksf
qall = qult / Fmin = qult / 3 = 6.1 ksf
Example 13.3: UBC Method
A 6′ by 6′ by 24″ (thick) cast-in-place reinforced concrete footing will be placed

within a 20-foot thick surface layer of clayey sand (SC). The footing will have an
embedment depth of 3 feet. Perform a UBC-type analysis to estimate the
allowable bearing pressure for these conditions.
Solution:
B = 6 ft, D = 3 ft
UBC Class 4 soil with qtab = 1500 psf (Table 1.5)
qall = [qtab][1 + 0.2(B-1) + 0.2(D-1)] ≤ 3qtab
= [qtab][1 + 0.2(6-1) + 0.2(3-1)] = 2.4qtab ≤ 3qtab
qall = (2.4)(1500 psf) = 3.6 ksf
13-12
SIZING A FOOTING
Once the allowable bearing stress has been established, the maximum allowable
(or safe) vertical column load Qall may be computed by considering vertical force
equilibrium (ΣFV = 0) for the free body of Figure 13.2:
Qall = BLqall - tBLγconc - (D - t)BLγsoil
Remember that footings and slabs are real (as opposed to theoretical) foundation
elements that will, at some point, be constructed. In practice, footing width,
length, and depth are generally specified in 6-inch (½-foot) increments, while slab
thickness is typically specified in 1-inch increments.
INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE DESIGN
Geotechnical analyses are performed using Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

methods rather than Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods. In
sizing a footing, we use the actual service loads (or unfactored loads) and a
safety factor that is used to reduce the capacity of the soil from qult to qall:
qult = the (ultimate) bearing capacity

qall = the maximum allowable (or safe) bearing pressure
qact = the actual bearing pressure
Fmin = the specified minimum required safety factor (typically ≥ 3)
F = the computed actual safety factor
In a rigorous analysis, qall is obtained from the computed value of qult and the
specified value of Fmin (typically, Fmin = 3). In a simplified analysis, qall is obtained
directly from UBC Table 18-1-A. Specific quantitative relations are as follows:
Fmin = qult/qall
F = qult/qact = (qall/qact) Fmin
Once again, remain mindful of the distinction between stability and safety. A
footing will be stable with respect to bearing failure if F ≥ 1. However, this same
footing will be adequately safe with respect to bearing failure only if F ≥ Fmin.
13-13
UNFACTORED (SERVICE) LOADS vs FACTORED (DESIGN) LOADS
Geotechnical stability calculations are performed using unfactored loads (also

known as service loads) and safety factors.
Structural stability calculations are performed using factored loads (also known
as design loads) and strength reduction factors, but no safety factors.
Unfactored Load (or Service Load):
Q = QD + QL
Basic Factored Load (or Design Load):
QU = 1.4QD + 1.7QL ≈ 1.6 (QD + QL) ≈ 1.6Q (ACI 318-99)

QU = 1.2QD + 1.6QL ≈ 1.5 (QD + QL) ≈ 1.5Q (ACI 318-02 and -05)
where:
QD = dead load
QL = live load
Q = actual dead + live load
QU = factored dead + live load
13-14
ACI 318-99 FACTORED LOADS
Design of the structural concrete member shall be based on the factored load
combination that provides for the greatest required strength U. The following
factored load combinations shall be considered (Section 9.2.1 through 9.2.7):
U = 1.40D + 1.70L (Eqn 9-1)

U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.28W (Eqn 9-2)
U = 0.90D + 1.30W (Eqn 9-3)
U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.40E
U = 0.90D + 1.43E
U = 1.40D + 1.70L + 1.70H(Eqn 9-4)
U = 0.90D + 1.70H
U = 1.40D + 1.70L + 1.40F
U = 0.90D + 1.40F
U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.05T (Eqn 9-5)
U = 1.40D + 1.40T (Eqn 9-6)
where: D = dead load, E = earthquake load, F = fluid load, H = soil load, L = live
load, T = temperature (and/or creep and/or differential settlement) load, W = wind
load.
13-15
ACI 318-02 and 318-05 FACTORED LOADS
Design of the structural concrete member shall be based on the factored load
combination that provides for the greatest required strength U. The following
factored load combinations shall be considered (Section 9.2.1 through 9.2.7):
U = 1.4(D + F) (Eqn 9-1)

U = 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or R or S) (Eqn 9-2)
U = 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R or S) + (1.0L or 0.8W) (Eqn 9-3)
U = 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.6W + 0.5(Lr or R or S) (Eqn 9-4)
U = 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 0.2S (Eqn 9-5)
U = 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.6W (Eqn 9-6)
U = 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E (Eqn 9-7)
where: D = dead load, E = earthquake (seismic) load, F = fluid load, H = soil

load, L = live load, Lr = roof live load, R = rain load, S = snow load,
T = temperature (and/or creep and/or differential settlement) load, and W = wind
load.
Design of the structural concrete member may also be based on the factored
load combinations and strength reduction factors of ACI 318-99.
13-16
ECCENTRICALLY LOADED FOOTINGS
A column will generally transmit bending, horizontal shear, and vertical

compression/tension to the supporting foundation element. In addition, the
column (and the associated vertical compressive or tensile force) may not be
aligned with the geometric center of the supporting element. Hence, the analyst
must be prepared to deal with either centrically or eccentrically loaded footings.
The method of analysis for eccentrically loaded footings parallels that for other
eccentrically loaded structural members. The essential steps are illustrated in
Figures 13.3 and 13.4 below.
Figure 13.3: Equivalence Transformation
13-17
Figure 13.4: Equivalence Transformation for a Beam
13-18
ANALYSIS for a CENTRIC COLUMN
For the case of an eccentrically loaded (B x L) footing that supports a centrically

placed column (Figure 13.5), A = BL, c = B/2, I = B3L/12, and S = I/c = B2L/6.
The maximum and minimum bearing stresses are:
qmax = Q/A + Mc/I = [Q + (6M/B)] / [BL]

qmin = Q/A - Mc/I = [Q - (6M/B)] / [BL]
Figure 13.5: Footing with a Centric Column
This completes the statics-based portion of the analysis. Now, consider the
possible bearing stress distributions for a real soil:
13-19
6M/B = 0 6M/B < Q 6M/B = Q 6M/B > Q
and therefore and therefore and therefore and therefore
qmin = qmax qmin > 0 qmin = 0 qmin < 0
Figure 13.6: Possible Bearing Stress Distributions
The distribution shown at the far right above is virtually impossible, since real
soils have little or no tensile strength, and no significant amount of adhesion (or
tension) could develop between the base of the footing and the supporting soil.
For this reason, foundation design manuals often caution the analyst to be
certain that the absolute value of the eccentricity (e = M/Q) is no greater than
one-sixth of the base width B. (The reminder is usually to “keep the resultant
vertical force within the middle third of the base.”)
13-20
OPTIMAL COLUMN PLACEMENT
The factor of safety with respect to bearing is F = qult/qact. When the bearing
stress distribution is uniform, qact = qmax = qmin. When the bearing stress
distribution is not uniform, the factor of safety is found from the “effective” plan
dimensions and the “equivalent” actual bearing stress:
qact = Q / A = Q / (BeffectiveL) = Q / (B - 2e)
Clearly, the factor of safety may be maximized by minimizing the value of qact.
This will occur when e = 0 and qmax = qmin.
The idea then is to position the column in such a way that the moment produced
by the eccentric column force (Qe) balances the moment transmitted by the
column (M). In other words:
e = M/Q
Figure 13.7: Optimal Column Eccentricity
13-21
Example 13.2: Optimal Column Placement
A reinforced concrete footing with a width of 15 feet, a length of 15 feet, an

embedment depth of 3 feet, and a thickness of 30 inches is to be supported by a
soil with a moist unit weight of 120 pcf and an ultimate bearing capacity of
6000 psf. The column will transmit a vertical force of 300 kips and a bending
moment of 450 foot-kips to the footing. Determine the factor of safety with
respect to bearing associated with a centrically placed column. Then, determine
the optimal placement of the column (that is, the column eccentricity that will
maximize this same factor of safety).
13-22
13-23
For the case of a column loading that includes bending moments about both the
width and the length axes, the optimal column placement will be defined by:
eB = MB/Q
B B and eL = ML/Q
Figure 13.8: Two Degrees of Eccentricity
13-24
Figure 13.9: Accounting for Horizontal Shear
Once again, a statically correct equivalence transformation is the key. The

analyst must also remember to check for the possibility of failure by sliding along
the base (which is often the governing failure mode of cantilever-type reinforced
concrete retaining walls).
13-25
INEFFICIENT FOOTINGS
The distribution shown at the far right in Figure 13.6 is virtually impossible, since
real soils have little or no tensile strength, and no significant amount of adhesion
(or tension) could develop between the base of the footing and the supporting
soil. For this reason, foundation design manuals often caution the analyst to be
certain that the absolute value of the eccentricity (e = M/Q) is no greater than
one-sixth of the base width B. (The reminder is usually to “keep the resultant
vertical force within the middle third of the base.”)
Figure 13.10: Bearing Stress Distribution
The unknowns in the bearing stress distribution of Figure 13.10 are qmax and x.
The equations of equilibrium are ΣFv = 0 and ΣMtoe = 0. Application of
equilibrium yields the following solution:
x = (QB - 2M) / 2Q
qmax = 2Q / 3x
13-26
SETTLEMENT
(Introduction to Chapters 14-18)
In general, total vertical deformation (or settlement, ρ) is the result of three

distinct phenomena or processes:
ρ = ρi + ρc + ρ α
ρi = immediate, elastic, or distortion settlement
This is the instantaneous or nearly instantaneous deformation that results

from the elastic compression and/or distortion of the soil solids.
ρc = consolidation settlement
This is the time-dependent compression that results from the expulsion of

water from the voids of a saturated, low-permeability clay. It is associated
with a transfer of stress from the incompressible fluid phase to the
compressible solid phase. (The total stress increment Δσ remains
constant, but Δσ′ increases as Δu decreases.)
ρα = creep (or secondary compression)
This is a time-dependent movement that results from changes in the fabric

(or arrangement of particles, particle assemblages, and voids) of a soil. It
is thought to be the result of electro-chemical forces that act at the atomic
and/or molecular level. It is most pronounced in marine clays of very high
natural water contents (such as the Mexico City clay). Creep occurs in the
absence of a total stress increment Δσ.
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
A number of theoretical, semi-empirical, and/or empirical methods are available

for the purpose of predicting the immediate vertical settlement (or distortion
settlement) of a foundation. The following procedures have received widespread
acceptance within the professional geotechnical engineering community.
Cohesive Soils (Clays)
A variety of equations have been developed by considering the soil to be a

homogeneous, isotropic, linear-elastic half-space. The Schleicher (1926)
equation serves as the basis for many subsequent variations, including those
developed by Fox (1948), Janbu et al (1956), Burmeister (1956, 1965), and Harr
(1966). For a foundation which rests on a deep deposit of saturated clay:
ρi = Cs q B (1 - ν2) / E
where: Cs = shape/rigidity factor from Table 5.1; q = actual bearing pressure

associated with the loaded foundation element; B = foundation width (shortest
plan dimension); ν = Poisson’s ratio (ν ≈ 0.25~0.40 for unsaturated clays and
ν ≈ 0.50 for saturated clays); E = Young’s modulus (initial tangent modulus
under consolidated undrained (CU type) triaxial compression). For a foundation
which rests on a shallow deposit of saturated clay that is underlain by a relatively
stiff base layer of dense soil or rock:
ρi = Cs′ q B (1 - ν2) / E
where: Cs′ = shape/depth factor from Table 5.2. Finally, for a foundation which
rests on a stiff surface layer that is underlain by a deep deposit of saturated clay:
ρi = Cs′′ Cs q B (1 -
ν 2) / E
where: Cs′′ = stiffness correction factor from Table 5.3. The immediate
settlement of a foundation which rests on a layered soil profile may also be
estimated through an approximate analysis such as that illustrated in Perloff and
Baron (1976) Example 5.2.
14-1
Cohesionless Soils and General Layered Profiles
Once again, a variety of alternative methods of analysis have been proposed.

Schmertmann’s (1970, 1978) method is quite versatile, in that it permits
estimates of immediate settlement to be derived from either field-based cone or
standard penetration test (CPT or SPT) data or laboratory-based triaxial test
data.
14-2
14-3
14-16
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT by SCHMERTMANN’S METHOD
(Schmertmann 1970; Schmertmann et al 1978)
ρi = C1C2ΔσΣ(IzΔz/E)
ρi = immediate settlement (in the same units as Δz)

C1 = dimensionless embedment factor = 1 - (σvo′ / 2Δσ) ≥ 0.5
C2 = dimensionless creep factor = 1 + 0.2 log (time in years / 0.1)
Δσ = net stress increase at the level of the footing base = σ - σvo′
σ = contact stress at the level of the footing base = (Qcol + Qftg + Qsoil) / B2
σvo′ = initial (pre-development) vertical effective stress at the level of the
footing base
Iz = strain influence factor at the centerline of the sublayer
Δz = sublayer thickness
E = elastic modulus = (qc / 9B)(21.5B + L) tsf = (C3N / 9B)(21.5B + L) tsf
qc = CPT tip resistance (in kg/cm2 or tsf)
N = SPT blow count (in blows/ft)
C3 = qc/N = an empirical correlation factor between CPT and SPT test data
that depends on the mean grain size (D50) of the soil layer under
consideration. Consult Figure 14.1 (when D50 data is available) or
Table 14.1 (when D50 data is not available)
B = footing width (shortest plan dimension)
L = footing length (longest plan dimension)
14-17
8
C3 Coefficient (C 3 = qc/N) 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000
Mean Grain Size D50 (mm)
Figure 14.1: Empirical CPT-SPT Correlation Factor C3
Table 14.1: CPT-SPT Correlation Factor C3

(when D50 is not known)
C3 Soil Description
1 clays
2 silts, sandy silts, & cohesive sand-silt mixtures
3.5 silty sands & clean fine-to-medium sands
5 clean coarse sands & gravelly sands
6 sandy gravels & gravels
7 glacial tills
14-18
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
1. Define the limits of the strain influence factor versus depth relation, I(z):
z = depth coordinate = depth below the footing base

zmax = depth at which the strain influence factor is a maximum
Ib = strain influence factor at the depth of the footing base (z = 0)
Imax = strain influence factor at z = zmax
σmax′= initial (pre-development) vertical effective stress at z = zmax
zmax = (8B + L) / 18 ≤ B
Ib = (8B + L) / 90B ≤ 0.20
Imax = 0.5 + 0.1(Δσ / σmax′)0.50
I(z) = Ib + (Imax - Ib)(z / zmax) ......... 0 ≤ z ≤ zmax
I(z) = (Imax / 3zmax)(4zmax - z) ...... zmax ≤ z ≤ 4zmax
Strain Influence Factor I

0 Ib Imax
0
zmax
Depth z
Below Ftg
Base
4zma
x
Figure 14.2: Strain Influence Diagram
14-19
2. Subdivide the soil mass within 0 ≤ z ≤ 4zmax and complete Table 14.2 below.
Sublayer boundaries must be placed at (a) zmax and (b) depths at which qc, N,
and/or C3 change.
Table 14.2: Spreadsheet Layout
z at
Layer
qc or N C3 E Δz layer Iz IzΔz/E
#
center
1
2
N
Σ
3. Compute the immediate settlement as ρi = C1C2ΔσΣ(IzΔz/E).
14-20
Input Instructions for Program
SETTLE
Immediate Settlement by Schmertmann’s Modified Method
To use SETTLE, the analyst must first create and save a text only file that
contains the required input data. The input file will consist of three sets of lines,
as defined below. Entries on any given line must be separated by either a
comma or by one or more spaces. Entries may be in decimal (0.0025) or
scientific notation (2.5E-03) form. Two sample input files and the corresponding
program-generated output are shown on the attached pages.
Line 1: Title Line (TL)
TL : any 80-character (maximum) heading of your choice
Line 2: Global Parameters Line (FD FB FL AS GD TC NL)
FD :
footing depth D (in feet)
FB :
footing width B (in feet)
FL :
footing length L (in feet)
AS contact stress σ (in psf) at the level of the footing base or
:
maximum immediate settlement ρi (in inches, preceded by a
negative sign, -)
GD : groundwater table depth (in feet below the ground surface)
TC : time (in years) if creep effects are to be included; set TC = 0 if
creep effects are to be excluded
NL : number of soil layers to be defined in line set 3 below
L Set 3: Soil Properties Line(s) (I D(I) G (I) N(I) C3(I))
Include one line for each soil layer, for a total of NL separate
lines. The subsurface stratigraphy must be defined to a depth of
at least 4zmax = (8B + L)/4.5
I : layer number
D(I) : depth to the base of layer I (in feet below the ground surface)
G(I) : total unit weight (in pcf)
N(I) : standard penetration test (SPT) blow count (in blows/foot)
C3(I): SPT to CPT correlation factor (used to compute E when CPT
data is unavailable)
14-21
14-22
SAMPLE INPUT FILE
(Created by the Analyst)
EXAMPLE 14.1 (SPECIFED APPLIED STRESS)

3 6 24 2000 36 .33 4
1 3 115 8 1
2 6 125 25 2
3 11 120 30 5
4 36 128 68 6
14-23
SAMPLE OUTPUT FILE
(Generated by Program SETTLE)
EXAMPLE 14.1 (SPECIFIED APPLIED STRESS)
INPUT DATA:
GLOBAL PARAMETERS:
------------------
FOUNDATION DEPTH = 3.000E+00

FOUNDATION WIDTH = 6.000E+00
FOUNDATION LENGTH = 2.400E+01
APPLIED STRESS = 2.000E+03
GWT DEPTH = 3.600E+01
TIME FOR CREEP = 3.300E-01
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
INPUT DATA:
LAYER PROPERTIES:
-----------------
LAYER MAX. DEPTH GAM. TOTAL BLOW COUNT "C3" VALUE

----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1 3.000E+00 1.150E+02 8.000E+00 1.000E+00

2 6.000E+00 1.250E+02 2.500E+01 2.000E+00
3 1.100E+01 1.200E+02 3.000E+01 5.000E+00
4 3.600E+01 1.280E+02 6.800E+01 6.000E+00
OUTPUT DATA:
KEY INTERMEDIATE VALUES:
------------------------
ZMAX = 4.000E+00
NET E-STRESS INC = 1.655E+03
E-STRESS AT BASE = 3.450E+02
E-STRESS AT ZMAX = 8.400E+02
I-FACTOR AT BASE = 1.333E-01
I-FACTOR AT ZMAX = 6.404E-01
EMBED FACTOR, C1 = 8.958E-01
CREEP FACTOR, C2 = 1.104E+00
FOOTING IN LAYER = 2
4(ZMAX) IN LAYER = 4
OUTPUT DATA:
SUBLAYER PROPERTIES:
--------------------
LAYER BLOW COUNT "C3" VALUE ES MODULUS CNTRLINE Z CNTRLINE I DEL-Z (IN) I*DEL-Z/ES
----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1 2.500E+01 2.000E+00 2.833E+05 1.500E+00 3.235E-01 3.600E+01 4.110E-05

2 3.000E+01 5.000E+00 8.500E+05 3.500E+00 5.770E-01 1.200E+01 8.146E-06
3 3.000E+01 5.000E+00 8.500E+05 6.000E+00 5.336E-01 4.800E+01 3.013E-05
4 6.800E+01 6.000E+00 2.312E+06 1.200E+01 2.135E-01 9.600E+01 8.863E-06
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL IMMEDIATE (ELASTIC) SETTLEMENT = 1.444E-01 INCHES.
--------------------------------------------------------
14-24
SAMPLE INPUT FILE
(Created by the Analyst)
EXAMPLE 14.2 (SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT)

3 6 24 -.1444 36 .33 4
1 3 115 8 1
2 6 125 25 2
3 11 120 30 5
4 36 128 68 6
14-25
SAMPLE OUTPUT FILE
(Generated by Program SETTLE)
EXAMPLE 14.2 (SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT)
INPUT DATA:
GLOBAL PARAMETERS:
------------------
FOUNDATION DEPTH = 3.000E+00

FOUNDATION WIDTH = 6.000E+00
FOUNDATION LENGTH = 2.400E+01
APPLIED STRESS =-1.444E-01
GWT DEPTH = 3.600E+01
TIME FOR CREEP = 3.300E-01
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
INPUT DATA:
LAYER PROPERTIES:
-----------------
LAYER MAX. DEPTH GAM. TOTAL BLOW COUNT "C3" VALUE

----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1 3.000E+00 1.150E+02 8.000E+00 1.000E+00

2 6.000E+00 1.250E+02 2.500E+01 2.000E+00
3 1.100E+01 1.200E+02 3.000E+01 5.000E+00
4 3.600E+01 1.280E+02 6.800E+01 6.000E+00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION CORRESPONDS TO AN APPLIED STRESS OF 2.001E+03 PSF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTPUT DATA:
KEY INTERMEDIATE VALUES:
------------------------
ZMAX = 4.000E+00
NET E-STRESS INC = 1.656E+03
E-STRESS AT BASE = 3.450E+02
E-STRESS AT ZMAX = 8.400E+02
I-FACTOR AT BASE = 1.333E-01
I-FACTOR AT ZMAX = 6.404E-01
EMBED FACTOR, C1 = 8.958E-01
CREEP FACTOR, C2 = 1.104E+00
FOOTING IN LAYER = 2
4(ZMAX) IN LAYER = 4
OUTPUT DATA:
SUBLAYER PROPERTIES:
--------------------
LAYER BLOW COUNT "C3" VALUE ES MODULUS CNTRLINE Z CNTRLINE I DEL-Z (IN) I*DEL-Z/ES
----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1 2.500E+01 2.000E+00 2.833E+05 1.500E+00 3.235E-01 3.600E+01 4.110E-05

2 3.000E+01 5.000E+00 8.500E+05 3.500E+00 5.770E-01 1.200E+01 8.146E-06
3 3.000E+01 5.000E+00 8.500E+05 6.000E+00 5.337E-01 4.800E+01 3.014E-05
4 6.800E+01 6.000E+00 2.312E+06 1.200E+01 2.135E-01 9.600E+01 8.864E-06
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL IMMEDIATE (ELASTIC) SETTLEMENT = 1.445E-01 INCHES.
--------------------------------------------------------
14-26
To run SETTLE, click on the SETTLE.EXE file from the Windows Explorer. The
program will prompt you for the names of the input and output files. Remember
to specify a valid path if either file resides in or is to be written to a different disk
or subdirectory than the one on which SETTLE.EXE resides (eg: A:EX-13.INP,
C:\481\974\EX-21.OUT, etc). The output file created by SETTLE may be viewed
with NOTEPAD, WORDPAD, or any word processing software.
14-27
14-28
Example 14.1: Immediate Settlement (Layered Profile)
A 6-foot by 24-foot strip footing is to be placed in the layered soil profile shown
below. The contact stress at the footing base will be 2000 psf. Estimate the
immediate settlement associated with a construction period of t = 0.33 years.
Total Unit Wt. SPT Blow Count

Soil Type
γ (pcf) N (bpf)
A Clay 115 8
B Sandy Silt 125 25
C Coarse Sand 120 30
D Sandy Gravel 128 68
14-29
14-30
Number Crunching:
σ = 2000 psf (given)
σvo′ = (3 ft)(115 pcf) = 345 psf
Δσ = σ - σvo′ = 1655 psf
zmax = (8B + L) / 18 = (48 + 24 ft) / 18 = 4 ft
σmax′ = (3 ft)(115 pcf) + (3 ft)(125 pcf) + (1 ft)(120 pcf) = 840 psf
E = (C3N / 9B)(21.5B + L) tsf = 2.833C3N tsf
Ib = (8B + L) / 90B = 0.133

Imax = 0.5 + 0.1(Δσ / σmax′)0.50 = 0.640
I(z) = Ib + (Imax - Ib)(z / zmax) (0 ≤ z ≤ 4 ft)
I(z) = (Imax / 3zmax)(4zmax - z) (4 ft ≤ z ≤ 16 ft)
C1 = 1 - (σvo′ / 2Δσ) = 0.896

C2 = 1 + 0.2 log (t / 0.1) = 1.104
C1C2Δσ = (0.896)(1.104)(1655 psf) = 1637 psf = 0.818 tsf
E Δz z to CL IzΔz/E
Layer C3 N Iz
(tsf) (in) (ft) (in/tsf)
1 2 25 142 36 1.5 0.323 0.0819
2 5 30 425 12 3.5 0.577 0.0163
3 5 30 425 48 6 0.533 0.0602
4 6 68 1155 96 12 0.213 0.0177
Σ = 0.1761
ρi = C1C2ΔσΣ(IzΔz/E)
ρi = (0.818 tsf)(0.1761 in/tsf) = 0.14 in (report as ⅛” ~ ¼”)
14-31
14-32
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
Relevant Material Properties
av = coefficient of compressibility
= slope of the void ratio vs effective stress curve
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility

= slope of the strain vs effective stress curve
Eoed = constrained or oedometric modulus

= slope of the effective stress vs strain curve
Cc = compression index
= slope of the virgin compression curve (VCC)
(the void ratio vs log effective stress curve)
Cr = recompression index
= slope of the recompression curve (RCC)
(the void ratio vs log effective stress curve)
15-1
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
Definitions and Key Predictive Equations
ε = Δe / (1 + eo)
av = de / dσ′ ≈ Δe / Δσ′
mv = dε / dσ′ ≈ Δε / Δσ′
av = mv (1 + eo)
Eoed = 1 / mv
Cc = Δe / Δlog σv′ = Δe / log (σfinal′ / σinitial′)
Five forms of the consolidation settlement equation:
ρc = H ε = H Δε
ρc = H Δe / (1 + eo)
ρc = H mv Δσ′
ρc = H av Δσ′ / (1 + eo)
ρc = [H Cc / (1 + eo)] [log (σfinal′ / σinitial′)]
15-2
THE KEY OBSERVATION
A soil is less compressible during reloading than during virgin loading.
DEFINITIONS
Cc = compression index (slope of the VCC)

Cr = recompression index (slope of the RCC)
Cd = decompression or swell index (slope of the DCC) = Cr
σvo′ = the initial vertical effective stress
σp′ = the preconsolidation stress (the largest vertical effective stress the soil
element has ever experienced)
OCR = σp′/σvo′ = the overconsolidation ratio
STATES OF CONSOLIDATION
Normally Consolidated (σp′ = σvo′ and OCR = 1):

The compressible layer has fully consolidated under the current
overburden. No additional overburden has ever been in place. This is a
steady-state or equilibrium condition.
Overconsolidated (σp′ > σvo′ and OCR > 1):

At some point in the past, the compressible layer has experienced an
effective overburden stress in excess of the current value. This is a
steady-state or equilibrium condition.
Under Consolidated or Still Consolidating (σp′ < σvo′ and OCR < 1):
The compressible layer has not yet fully consolidated under the current
overburden. Additional consolidation (and surface settlement) will
continue to occur with time. This is a transient condition -- an under
consolidated soil will eventually become normally consolidated.
15-3
CAUSES OF OVERCONSOLIDATION
Prior loads that no longer exist (glaciers, sand dunes, old superstructures, etc)
Desiccation or erosion of the surface layer(s)
Variations in groundwater table (GWT) elevation
Variations in flow path and/or flow rate
Tectonic forces
KEYS TO THE ANALYSIS

and
THE GENERAL FORM OF THE CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT EQUATION
Use an idealized bilinear representation of the soil’s e vs log σ′ response

Show: σp′ , σvo′ , σinitial′ , σfinal′ , Δσ
σp′ = by laboratory oedometer testing
σvo′ = by calculation
σinitial′ = the smaller of σp′ and σvo′
σfinal′ = σvo′ + Δσ
eo = void ratio corresponding to σinitial′
C* = slope of the appropriate portion of the e vs log σ′ curve (either Cc or Cr)
ρc = [HC*/(1+eo)] log (σfinal′/σinitial′)
15-4
1. Loading (Δσ increment)
Normally Consolidated (σvo′ = σp′ and OCR = 1)
2a. Loading (Δσ increment)

Overconsolidated (σvo′ ≤ σp′ and OCR ≥ 1)
with (σvo′ + Δσ) ≤ σp′ (RCC only)
2b. Loading (Δσ increment)

with (σvo′ + Δσ) ≥ σp′ (RCC + VCC)
15x-1
3. Loading (Δσ increment)
Underconsolidated or Still Consolidating (σvo′ ≥ σp′ and OCR ≤ 1)
4. Unloading (Δσ decrement)

Normally Consolidated (σvo′ = σp′ and OCR = 1)
5. Unloading (Δσ decrement)

15x-2
6a. Unloading (Δσ decrement)
with (σvo′ - Δσ) ≥ σp′ (VCC only)
6b. Unloading (Δσ decrement)

with (σvo′ - Δσ) ≤ σp′ (RCC only)
15x-3
SPECIFIC EQUATIONS for CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
Remember to construct an idealized bilinear representation of the e vs log σ′

response curve. Show the five key stresses: σp′ - σvo′ - σinitial′ - σfinal′ - Δσ. Then,
and only then, particularize the general equation:
ρc = [HC*/(1+eo)] log (σfinal′/σinitial′)
I. Loading (Δσ increment):
1. Normally Consolidated (σvo′ = σp′ and OCR = 1)

ρc = [(HCc)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′+Δσ)/σvo′]
2. Overconsolidated (σvo′ ≤ σp′ and OCR ≥ 1)
2a. (σvo′ + Δσ) ≤ σp′ (RCC only)
ρc = [(HCr)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′+Δσ)/σvo′]
2b. (σvo′ + Δσ) ≥ σp′ (RCC + VCC)
ρc = ρRCC + ρVCC
ρc = [(H)/(1+eo)] [Cr log(σp′/σvo′) + Cc log((σvo′+Δσ)/σp′)]
3. Underconsolidated or Still Consolidating (σvo′ ≥ σp′ and OCR ≤ 1)
ρc = [(HCc)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′+Δσ)/σp′]
II. Unloading (Δσ decrement):
1. Normally Consolidated (σvo′ = σp′ and OCR = 1)

ρc = [(HCr)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′-Δσ)/σvo′]
2. Overconsolidated (σvo′ ≤ σp′ and OCR ≥ 1)
ρc = [(HCr)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′-Δσ)/σvo′]
3. Underconsolidated or Still Consolidating (σvo′ ≥ σp′ and OCR ≤ 1)
3a. (σvo′ - Δσ) ≥ σp′ (VCC only)
ρc = [(HCc)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′-Δσ)/σp′] ≥ 0
3b. (σvo′ - Δσ) ≤ σp′ (RCC only)
ρc = [(HCr)/(1+eo)]log[(σvo′-Δσ)/σp′] ≤ 0
15x-4
EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS AND TYPICAL VALUES
Table 15.1: Empirical Equations for Cc (Partial List)
Soil Type Equation

remolded clays Cc ≈ 0.007 (LL - 7)
undisturbed low-sensitivity clays Cc ≈ 0.009 (LL - 10)
all clays Cc ≈ 1.15 (eo - 0.35)
very low plasticity clays Cc ≈ 0.75 (eo - 0.50)
silty clays Cc ≈ 0.30 (eo - 0.27)
Chicago clays Cc ≈ 0.208eo + 0.0083
Chicago clays Cc ≈ 0.01wn
organic clays Cc ≈ 0.0115wn
Note: LL = liquid limit; eo = initial void ratio; wn = natural water content
Table 15.2: Typical Values of Cc
Soil Type Cc
Chicago silty clay (CL) 0.1 ~ 0.3
medium-sensitivity OCR=1 clays 0.2 ~ 0.5
Boston blue clay (CL) 0.3 ~ 0.5
Bangkok clay (CH) 0.4
San Francisco Bay Mud (CL) 0.4 ~ 1.2
Vicksburg Buckshot clay (CH) 0.5 ~ 0.6
San Francisco Old Bay clay (CH) 0.7 ~ 0.9
Swedish clay (CL-CH) 1~3
Canadian Leda clay (CL-CH) 1~4
clayey silt (ML-MH) 1.5 ~ 4
organic clay (OH) >4
Mexico City clay (MH) 7 ~ 10
Peat (Pt) 10 ~ 15
Table 15.3: Typical Values of Cr
Cr is often assumed to be about 5~10% of Cc. Typical values of Cr range from

about 0.015 to about 0.035 (Leonards, 1976). The lower values are for low
plasticity normally and slightly overconsolidated clays.
15-5
15-6
Figure 15.1: Actual Overburden and Preconsolidation Stress Profiles
(after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
15-7
Figure 15.2: Actual Overburden and Preconsolidation Stress Profiles
15-8
Graphical Method for Estimating Cc and Cr
(Undisturbed Specimens)
1. Plot void ratio vs log(effective stress).

2. Identify the linear portion of the virgin compression curve and extend this line
backwards and forwards. The compression index Cc is defined as the
absolute slope of the virgin compression curve (-Δe/Δlog σ′), or the change in
void ratio (Δe) over one log cycle. For the example shown, Cc ≈ 0.40.
3. Construct a line that passes through the end points of the decompression-
recompression loop, and extend this line backwards and forwards. The
recompression index Cr is defined as the absolute slope of the recompression
curve (-Δe/Δlog σ′), or the change in void ratio (Δe) over one log cycle. For
the example shown, Cr ≈ 0.050.
15-9
Casagrande’s Graphical Method for Estimating σp′
(Undisturbed Specimens)
1. Plot void ratio vs log(effective stress).

2. Estimate the point of maximum curvature.
3. Construct a horizontal line (parallel to the effective stress axis) through
point 2.
4. Construct a tangent to the curve at point 2.
5. Bisect the angle formed by line 3 and 4.
6. Identify the linear portion of the virgin compression curve and extend this line
backwards until it intersects line 5.
7. The point of intersection between lines 5 and 6 defines the preconsolidation
stress σp′. For the example shown, σp′ ≈ 2600 psf
15-10
Example 15.1: Consolidation Settlement
A 40′ thick layer of saturated, soft clay (eo = 1.00; γ = 112 pcf; OCR = 1,
Cc = 0.40, Cr = 0.05) is overlain by a 10′ thick layer of silty sand (γ = 120 pcf) and
underlain by sound rock. The groundwater table lies at the sand-clay interface.
Estimate the consolidation settlement that would ultimately result from the
placement of an extensive engineered fill which produces a uniform loading of
1000 psf to the native soil. Compare settlement predictions associated with 1-,
2-, 4-, and 8-sublayer analytical models.
15-11
Solution: Example 15.1
Overburden Properties
Overburden Thickness h1 10 feet
Overburden Unit Weight γ1 120 pcf
GWT Depth 10 feet
Applied Stress Increment Δσ 1000 psf
Compressible Clay Properties
Thickness h2 40 feet
Saturated Unit Weight γ2 112 pcf
Initial Void Ratio eo 1.00
Overconsolidation Ratio OCR 1
Compression Index Cc 0.40
Recompression Index Cr 0.05
Layer ΔH CL Depth σvo uo σvo' ρc

(ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (ft)
1 40 30 3440 1248 2192 1.31
Σ 1.31
1 20 20 2320 624 1696 0.81

2 20 40 4560 1872 2688 0.55
Σ 1.35
1 10 15 1760 312 1448 0.46

2 10 25 2880 936 1944 0.36
3 10 35 4000 1560 2440 0.30
4 10 45 5120 2184 2936 0.25
Σ 1.37
1 5 12.5 1480 156 1324 0.24

2 5 17.5 2040 468 1572 0.21
3 5 22.5 2600 780 1820 0.19
4 5 27.5 3160 1092 2068 0.17
5 5 32.5 3720 1404 2316 0.16
6 5 37.5 4280 1716 2564 0.14
7 5 42.5 4840 2028 2812 0.13
8 5 47.5 5400 2340 3060 0.12
Σ 1.37
# of ρc
Layers (ft)
1 1.31
2 1.35
4 1.37
8 1.37
15-12
Example 15.2: Consolidation Settlement
A 40′ thick layer of saturated, soft clay (eo = 1.00; γ = 112 pcf; σp′ (z) = defined by
the distribution shown below, Cc = 0.40, Cr = 0.05) is overlain by a 10′ thick layer
of silty sand (γ = 120 pcf) and underlain by sound rock. The groundwater table
lies at the sand-clay interface. Estimate the consolidation settlement that would
ultimately result from the placement of an extensive engineered fill which
produces a uniform loading of 1000 psf to the native soil. Compare settlement
predictions associated with 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-sublayer analytical models.
15-13
Solution: Example 15.2
Overburden Properties
Overburden Thickness h1 10 feet
Overburden Unit Weight γ1 120 pcf
GWT Depth 10 feet
Thickness h2 40 feet
Saturated Unit Weight γ2 112 pcf
Overconsolidation Ratio OCR variable
Layer ΔH CL Depth σp' σvo' σvo' + Δσ Path ρc

(ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (ft)
1 40 30 2400 2192 3192 R+V 1.03
Σ 1.03
1 20 20 2490 1696 2696 R+V 0.22

2 20 40 2720 2688 3688 R+V 0.53
Σ 0.75
1 10 15 2750 1448 2448 R 0.06

2 10 25 2390 1944 2944 R+V 0.20
3 10 35 2530 2440 3440 R+V 0.27
4 10 45 2940 2936 3936 V 0.25
Σ 0.79
1 5 12.5 2960 1324 2324 R 0.03

2 5 17.5 2580 1572 2572 R 0.03
3 5 22.5 2410 1820 2820 R+V 0.08
4 5 27.5 2400 2068 3068 R+V 0.11
5 5 32.5 2460 2316 3316 R+V 0.13
6 5 37.5 2620 2564 3564 R+V 0.13
7 5 42.5 2810 2812 3812 V 0.13
8 5 47.5 3060 3060 4060 V 0.12
Σ 0.78
# of ρc
Layers (ft)
1 1.03
2 0.75
4 0.79
8 0.78
15-14
STRESS DISTRIBUTION
beneath
APPLIED LOADS of LIMITED AREAL EXTENT
In our discussion of consolidation settlement to date, we have dealt exclusively

with problems in which the vertical stress increment is constant with depth (that
is, Δσz = Δσ at all depths z). For example, placement of an extensive fill of
uniform thickness hfill and unit weight γfill on a site that includes a relatively
shallow and thin layer of compressible clay would produce a vertical stress
increment of Δσz = hfill γfill at all depths within the compressible clay.
Most consolidation problems involve footing, slab, pavement section, and/or fill
loads that are of limited areal extent. When the applied load is of limited areal
extent, the resulting vertical stress increment will (in general) vary as a function
of both depth coordinate z and lateral coordinates x and y. The vertical stress
increment distribution associated with a uniformly loaded circular footing is shown
in Figure 16.1.
Figure 16.1: Stress Distributions and Isobars

(after Perloff and Baron, 1976)
16-1
When the applied loading is of limited areal extent, the analyst must determine
the vertical stress increment distribution within the compressible layer(s) in order
to compute the amount of consolidation that will occur within those layers. The
various predictive equations may be subdivided into the following broad classes:
1. Approximate Solutions
2. Rigorous Solutions Derived from the Theory of Elasticity
A. Boussinesq Solutions
B. Westergaard Solutions
The Boussinesq (1885) solutions were developed by considering the soil to be a

homogeneous, isotropic, linear-elastic half-space. The Westergaard (1938)
solutions were developed by considering the profile to be comprised of
alternating layers of ideally-elastic material and infinitely-thin, laterally-rigid
material. The Westergaard model may be a more accurate representation of
certain sedimentary deposits known as laminated clays (t ≤ 1/8″) or varved
clays (1/8″ ≤ t ≤ 1/2″) that are formed by the aggradation of alternating thin
horizontal layers of silts and clays.
The Boussinesq values of Δσ(x,y,z) are somewhat larger (and therefore more
conservative) than the corresponding Westergaard values. For this reason, the
Boussinesq solutions are favored by most geotechnical practitioners. The
various Boussinesq solutions may be subdivided on the basis of load type and
loaded area shape:
1. Point Loads
2. Line Loads
3. Uniform Loads
a. Circular Footprint
b. Rectangular Footprint
c. General (Regular or Irregular) Footprint (Newmark, 1942)
4. Non-Uniform Loads (trapezoidal, triangular, etc)
The stress increment at any point in a soil profile -- Δσ(x,y,z) or Δσxyz -- may be
related to the applied stress increment Δσ by means of a scalar multiplier
referred to as an influence value -- I(x,y,z) or Ixyz:
Δσxyz = Ixyz Δσ
Influence values may be computed with the aid of various closed-form equations
or read directly from various influence diagrams.
16-2
APPROXIMATE 2:1 METHOD
Influence values are developed from the assumptions that the zone of influence
can be defined by a truncated pyramid with side slopes of 2:1 (vertical:horizontal)
and that the total vertical force increment does not vary with depth. The vertical
stress increment at depth z below the base of a rectangular loaded area (of plan
width B and plan length L) is:
Fapplied = Fz
Δσ BL = Δσz (B+z)(L+z)
Δσz = (Δσ BL) / [(B+z)(L+z)]
Δσz = Iz Δσ
Iz = (BL) / [(B+z)(L+z)]
16-3
BOUSSINESQ POINT LOAD
Δσzr = Izr Q
Izr = (3z3) / [2π (z2 + r2)5/2]
where
Q = point load (force)

z = depth below point of load application
r = horizontal distance from point of load application
BOUSSINESQ LINE LOAD
Δσzr = Izr Q
Izr = (2z3) / [π (z2 + r2)2]
where
Q = line load (force/length)

z = depth below point of load application
r = horizontal distance from line of load application
16-4
BOUSSINESQ UNIFORMLY LOADED CIRCULAR AREA
The vertical stress increment at any point beneath or outside a uniformly loaded
circular area may be obtained from Perloff and Baron (1976) Figure A.3, or the
equivalent. A typical analysis would proceed as follows:
1. Decide where the settlement is to be computed. For settlement at the

center of the loaded area, fix r = 0 and r/a = 0; for settlement at the
edge of the loaded area, fix r = a and r/a = 1; etc.
2. Decide on the actual depths z (and normalized depths z/a) at which the
vertical stress increment is needed (for example, at the midpoint of
each sublayer).
3. For each value of z/a, read over until you intersect the correct r/a
contour, and then read up to obtain the corresponding influence factor
(in percent form).
4. Compute the corresponding vertical stress increment:
Δσzr = Izr Δσ
where
Δσ = applied stress increment

a = radius of loaded area
z = depth below base of loaded area
r = horizontal distance from centerline of loaded area
Influence values at any depth z beneath the center of the loaded area only may
also be found from the following closed-form equation:
Iz = 1 - {1 / [1 + (a/z)2]}3/2
16-5
BOUSSINESQ UNIFORMLY LOADED RECTANGULAR AREA
rectangular area may be obtained from Perloff and Baron (1976) Figure A.5, or
the equivalent. A typical analysis would proceed as follows:
1. Decide where the settlement is to be computed. If necessary, create a

model of the loaded area which ensures that the point under
consideration is beneath a corner of each and every footprint that
comprises the analytical model.
2. Decide on the actual depths z at which the vertical stress increment is
needed (for example, at the midpoint of each sublayer).
3. For each value of z, compute m = B/z and n = L/z. Using Figure A.5,
locate m (or n) on the horizontal axis, read up until you intersect the
correct n (or m) contour, and read over to the left to obtain the
corresponding influence factor.
4. Compute the corresponding vertical stress increment:
Δσz = Iz Δσ
where

Influence values at any depth z beneath the corner of the loaded area only may
also be found from the closed-form equation given in Figure A.5:
16-6
BOUSSINESQ UNIFORMLY LOADED GENERAL AREA
(NEWMARK’S CHART)
area of completely general shape may be obtained from Poulos (198x)
Figure 3.50, or the equivalent. A typical analysis would proceed as follows:
1. Prepare a transparency of Newmark’s Chart.

2. Decide on the actual depth z at which the vertical stress increment is
needed (for example, at the midpoint of the layer or sublayer).
3. Draft a scale drawing of the loaded area using the scale OQ = z, where
distance OQ is defined on Newmark’s Chart.
4. Position Newmark’s Chart over the scale drawing in such a way that
the plan coordinate under consideration is beneath the origin of the
chart.
5. Count the number of chart elements that overlay the loaded area.
Treat partial coverage as a fraction of a full element.
6. Compute the vertical stress increment at this depth and plan
coordinate as:
Δσz = (N / 1000) Δσ
where

N = number of chart elements that overlay the loaded area
7. Repeat steps 4-6 for all other plan coordinates of interest.

8. Repeat steps 2-7 for all other depths of interest.
The requirement to draft a separate scale drawing for each depth of interest
prevents this procedure from being amenable to computer-aided solution.
Newmark’s Chart is particularly useful when (1) only a single depth must be
examined, or (2) when the loading to the soil is produced by the placement of
multiple regularly-shaped footings and/or slabs, or (3) when the loaded area is of
irregular shape that is not readily modeled as a combination of circles and/or
rectangles.
16-7
LAYERED PROFILES
The Boussinesq (1885) solutions were developed by considering the soil to be a

homogeneous, isotropic, linear-elastic half-space. It is common for the soil
profile under consideration to consist of two or more distinct soil strata. Rigorous
theoretical solutions (Burmister, 1948) indicate that the relative stiffness of two
adjacent strata (as reflected by the modulus ratio, E1/E2) may have a significant
effect on the vertical stress increment distribution within the profile. The effect of
modulus ratio for a two-layer system is depicted in Figure 16.2.
The real effect of modulus ratio may not be nearly as significant as theory would
indicate. Indeed, research conducted by Sowers and Vesic (1962) suggests that
the real effect may be slight. For this reason, most geotechnical practitioners use
the Boussinesq solutions for both homogeneous and layered profiles.
Figure 16.2: Stress Distribution vs Stiffness

(after Perloff and Baron, 1976)
16-8
16-9
16-10
16-11
16-12
16-13
16-14
Figure 16.3: Boussinesq Models for Interior and Exterior Points
16x-1
Example 16.0: Modeling
Create analytical models that will enable the Boussinesq solution to be used to
find the influence factor Iz and vertical stress increment Δσz at various points
beneath or outside the uniformly loaded rectangular slab shown below.
16x-2
# Footprint
Point + or -
Req’d Dimensions
16x-3
# Footprint
Point + or -
Req’d Dimensions
A + 1 20 x 60
B + 2 10 x 60
C + 2 20 x 30
D + 4 10 x 30
E + 1 05 x 10
+ 1 15 x 10
+ 1 05 x 50
+ 1 15 x 50
F + 1 40 x 100
- 1 20 x 100
- 1 40 x 40
+ 1 40 x 20
For Point A:
Δσz = I20 x 60 Δσ
For Point B:
Δσz = 2I10 x 60 Δσ
For Point C:
Δσz = 2I20 x 30 Δσ
For Point D:
Δσz = 4I10 x 30 Δσ
For Point E:
Δσz = (I5 x 10 + I15 x 10 + I5 x 50 + I15 x 50) Δσ
For Point F:
Δσz = (I40 x 100 - I20 x 100 – I40 x 40 + I40 x 20) Δσ
When modeling is required, always sum the influence factors and perform a
single consolidation settlement calculation. Never sum the settlements due to
each individual footprint or shape, since the equation for ρc is non-linear in Δσz.
Please note that this same “superposition” technique may be used with circular
or irregular footprints, or with profiles that support multiple loaded slabs.
16x-4
Example 16.1: Circular Loaded Area (Figure A.3)
A 4-foot deep, 2-foot thick, 8-foot diameter reinforced concrete footing will
transmit an unfactored vertical column load of 97.5 kips to the supporting soil.
Estimate the maximum consolidation settlement that will ultimately result from
this specific portion of the site development.
As indicated below, the soil profile consists of a 10-foot thick surface layer of silty
sand (γ = 120 pcf), a 16-foot middle layer of saturated clay (eo = 1.20,
γ = 112 pcf, OCR = 1, Cc = 0.40, and Cr = 0.05), and a base layer of sound
bedrock. The groundwater table coincides with the sand-clay interface.
16-15
Solution
Stress Distribution Example 16.1
Footing Properties
Footing Depth D 4 feet
Footing Thickness t 2 feet
Footing Radius a 4 feet
Unfactored Column Load Q 97.5 kips
Unit Wt of Soil Cover γ 120 pcf
Saturated Unit Weight γsat 112 pcf
SINGLE LAYER MODEL
Maximum Consolidation Settlement (Footing Center)
Layer Hi z σvo' z/a I Δσz log(σfinal/σinitial) ρc

# (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (inch)
1 16 14 1597 3.5 0.1110 222 0.0565 1.97
Σ 16 0.0565 1.97
Minimum Consolidation Settlement (Footing Edge)

1 16 14 1597 3.5 0.0940 188 0.0483 1.69
Σ 16 0.0483 1.69
FOUR SUBLAYER MODEL

1 4 8 1299 2 0.2845 569 0.1577 1.38
2 4 12 1498 3 0.1462 292 0.0774 0.68
3 4 16 1696 4 0.0869 174 0.0424 0.37
4 4 20 1894 5 0.0571 114 0.0254 0.22
Σ 16 0.3030 2.64
Minimum Consolidation Settlement (Footing Edge)

1 4 8 1299 2 0.195 390 0.1140 0.99
2 4 12 1498 3 0.120 240 0.0645 0.56
3 4 16 1696 4 0.075 150 0.0368 0.32
4 4 20 1894 5 0.052 104 0.0232 0.20
Σ 16 0.2385 2.08
16-16
Example 16.2: Rectangular Loaded Area (Figure A.5)
A 4-foot deep, 2-foot thick, 8-foot wide, 8-foot long reinforced concrete footing will
transmit an unfactored vertical column load of 124 kips to the supporting soil.
Estimate the maximum and minimum consolidation settlement that will ultimately
result from this specific portion of the site development.
As indicated below, the soil profile consists of a 10-foot thick surface layer of silty
sand (γ = 120 pcf), a 16-foot middle layer of saturated clay (eo = 1.20,
γ = 112 pcf, OCR = 1, Cc = 0.40, and Cr = 0.05), and a base layer of sound
bedrock. The groundwater table coincides with the sand-clay interface.
16-17
Solution
Footing Properties
Footing Depth D 4 feet
Footing Thickness t 2 feet
Footing Base Width B 8 feet
Unfactored Column Load Q 124 kips
Unit Wt of Soil Cover γ 120 pcf
Saturated Unit Weight γsat 112 pcf
SINGLE LAYER MODEL
Layer Hi z σvo' B m n I 4I Δσz log(σfinal/σinitial) ρc

# (ft) (ft) (psf) (ft) (psf) (inch)
1 16 14 1597 4 0.286 0.286 0.0343 0.1372 274 0.0688 2.40
Σ 16 0.0688 2.40
Minimum Consolidation Settlement (Footing Corner)
Layer Hi z σvo' B m n I Δσz log(σfinal/σinitial) ρc

1 16 14 1597 8 0.571 0.571 0.1005 201 0.0514 1.80
Σ 16 0.0514 1.80
FOUR SUBLAYER MODEL
Layer Hi z σvo' B m n I 4I Δσz log(σfinal/σinitial) ρc

1 4 8 1299 4 0.500 0.500 0.0840 0.3361 671 0.1809 1.58
2 4 12 1498 4 0.333 0.333 0.0447 0.1789 357 0.0930 0.81
3 4 16 1696 4 0.250 0.250 0.0270 0.1081 216 0.0520 0.45
4 4 20 1894 4 0.200 0.200 0.0179 0.0716 143 0.0316 0.28
Σ 16 0.3575 3.12
Minimum Consolidation Settlement (Footing Corner)
Layer Hi z σvo' B m n I Δσz log(σfinal/σinitial) ρc

1 4 8 1299 8 1.000 1.000 0.1752 350 0.1036 0.90
2 4 12 1498 8 0.667 0.667 0.1210 242 0.0650 0.57
3 4 16 1696 8 0.500 0.500 0.0840 168 0.0410 0.36
4 4 20 1894 8 0.400 0.400 0.0602 120 0.0267 0.23
Σ 16 0.2363 2.06
16-18
Example 16.3: Newmark’s Chart (Figure 3.50)
The irregularly shaped pad shown below will transmit a vertical stress increment
of Δσ = 2000 psf to the soil on which it rests. Use Newmark’s Chart to determine
the vertical stress increment below column A and column B at depths of
z1 = 24 feet and z2 = 48 feet below the base of the loaded pad.
16-19
16-20
Example 16.4: Newmark’s Chart (Figure 3.50)
The six square building pads shown below will transmit vertical stress increments
of Δσ = 2000 psf to the soil on which they rest. Use Newmark’s Chart to
determine the vertical stress increment below center point A and corner point B
at depths of z1 = 25 feet and z2 = 50 feet below grade.
16-21
16-22
Example 16.5: Depth Of Significant Influence
Perform a Boussinesq analysis to determine the normalized depth z/B below

which the vertical stress increment Δσz is less than 10% of the stress increment
at the footing base Δσ. Consider square slabs on grade with B = 5′ and B = 10′.
16-23
Example 16.6: Effect Of Geometrical Damping
A 40′ thick layer of normally consolidated clay (eo = 1.20, γsat = 116 pcf,
Cc = 0.60) is overlain by a 10′ thick layer of silty sand (γ = 124 pcf). The
groundwater table lies at the sand-clay interface. Determine the maximum
consolidation settlement associated with a 10′ by 10′ slab on grade that imparts a
uniform stress increment of Δσ = 2000 psf to the soil on which it rests. Compare
the results of a Boussinesq solution that accounts for geometric damping with an
erroneous solution that does not.
16-24
Example 16.7: Rigorous Vs Simplified Solutions
A 10′ by 40′ reinforced concrete slab imparts a uniform stress increment of

Δσ = 2000 psf to the soil on which it rests. Determine the variation in vertical
stress increment with depth (for 0 ≤ z ≤ 40′) below each of the following four
points: (A) the slab center; (B) the midpoint of a long edge; (C) the midpoint of a
short edge; and (D) a slab corner. Compare a rigorous Boussinesq analysis with
a simplified 2:1 analysis.
16-25
Solution
BOUSSINESQ METHOD 2:1 METHOD

z Δσ B L n m I ΣI Δσz I Δσz
(ft) (psf) (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf)
Point A: Model as Four 5' x 20' Footings Point A
0.00 2000 5 20 ######## ######## 0.2500 1.0000 2000 1.0000 2000
1.25 2000 5 20 4.000 16.000 0.2485 0.9938 1988 0.8620 1724
2.5 2000 5 20 2.000 8.000 0.2398 0.9593 1919 0.7529 1506
5 2000 5 20 1.000 4.000 0.2042 0.8167 1633 0.5926 1185
7.5 2000 5 20 0.667 2.667 0.1658 0.6633 1327 0.4812 962
10 2000 5 20 0.500 2.000 0.1350 0.5398 1080 0.4000 800
12.5 2000 5 20 0.400 1.600 0.1114 0.4454 891 0.3386 677
15 2000 5 20 0.333 1.333 0.0931 0.3726 745 0.2909 582
17.5 2000 5 20 0.286 1.143 0.0788 0.3153 631 0.2530 506
20 2000 5 20 0.250 1.000 0.0674 0.2694 539 0.2222 444
22.5 2000 5 20 0.222 0.889 0.0581 0.2322 464 0.1969 394
25 2000 5 20 0.200 0.800 0.0504 0.2017 403 0.1758 352
27.5 2000 5 20 0.182 0.727 0.0441 0.1764 353 0.1580 316
30 2000 5 20 0.167 0.667 0.0388 0.1552 310 0.1429 286
32.5 2000 5 20 0.154 0.615 0.0344 0.1374 275 0.1298 260
35 2000 5 20 0.143 0.571 0.0306 0.1223 245 0.1185 237
37.5 2000 5 20 0.133 0.533 0.0274 0.1095 219 0.1087 217
40 2000 5 20 0.125 0.500 0.0246 0.0984 197 0.1000 200
Point B: Model as Two 10' x 20' Footings Point B
0.00 2000 10 20 ######## ######## 0.2500 0.5000 1000 1.0000 2000
1.25 2000 10 20 8.000 16.000 0.2498 0.4996 999 0.8620 1724
2.5 2000 10 20 4.000 8.000 0.2484 0.4967 993 0.7529 1506
5 2000 10 20 2.000 4.000 0.2391 0.4782 956 0.5926 1185
7.5 2000 10 20 1.333 2.667 0.2217 0.4434 887 0.4812 962
10 2000 10 20 1.000 2.000 0.1999 0.3999 800 0.4000 800
12.5 2000 10 20 0.800 1.600 0.1774 0.3548 710 0.3386 677
15 2000 10 20 0.667 1.333 0.1561 0.3122 624 0.2909 582
17.5 2000 10 20 0.571 1.143 0.1370 0.2739 548 0.2530 506
20 2000 10 20 0.500 1.000 0.1202 0.2404 481 0.2222 444
22.5 2000 10 20 0.444 0.889 0.1056 0.2113 423 0.1969 394
25 2000 10 20 0.400 0.800 0.0931 0.1863 373 0.1758 352
27.5 2000 10 20 0.364 0.727 0.0824 0.1648 330 0.1580 316
30 2000 10 20 0.333 0.667 0.0732 0.1464 293 0.1429 286
32.5 2000 10 20 0.308 0.615 0.0653 0.1306 261 0.1298 260
35 2000 10 20 0.286 0.571 0.0585 0.1170 234 0.1185 237
37.5 2000 10 20 0.267 0.533 0.0526 0.1053 211 0.1087 217
40 2000 10 20 0.250 0.500 0.0475 0.0951 190 0.1000 200
Point C: Model as Two 5' x 40' Footings Point C
0.00 2000 5 40 ######## ######## 0.2500 0.5000 1000 1.0000 2000
1.25 2000 5 40 4.000 32.000 0.2485 0.4969 994 0.8620 1724
2.5 2000 5 40 2.000 16.000 0.2399 0.4797 959 0.7529 1506
5 2000 5 40 1.000 8.000 0.2045 0.4091 818 0.5926 1185
7.5 2000 5 40 0.667 5.333 0.1669 0.3339 668 0.4812 962
10 2000 5 40 0.500 4.000 0.1372 0.2745 549 0.4000 800
12.5 2000 5 40 0.400 3.200 0.1151 0.2301 460 0.3386 677
15 2000 5 40 0.333 2.667 0.0983 0.1967 393 0.2909 582
17.5 2000 5 40 0.286 2.286 0.0854 0.1708 342 0.2530 506
20 2000 5 40 0.250 2.000 0.0752 0.1503 301 0.2222 444
22.5 2000 5 40 0.222 1.778 0.0668 0.1337 267 0.1969 394
25 2000 5 40 0.200 1.600 0.0599 0.1199 240 0.1758 352
27.5 2000 5 40 0.182 1.455 0.0541 0.1082 216 0.1580 316
30 2000 5 40 0.167 1.333 0.0491 0.0983 197 0.1429 286
32.5 2000 5 40 0.154 1.231 0.0448 0.0897 179 0.1298 260
35 2000 5 40 0.143 1.143 0.0411 0.0821 164 0.1185 237
37.5 2000 5 40 0.133 1.067 0.0377 0.0755 151 0.1087 217
40 2000 5 40 0.125 1.000 0.0348 0.0696 139 0.1000 200
Point D: Model as One 10' x 40' Footings Point D
0.00 2000 10 40 ######## ######## 0.2500 0.2500 500 1.0000 2000
1.25 2000 10 40 8.000 32.000 0.2498 0.2498 500 0.8620 1724
2.5 2000 10 40 4.000 16.000 0.2485 0.2485 497 0.7529 1506
5 2000 10 40 2.000 8.000 0.2398 0.2398 480 0.5926 1185
7.5 2000 10 40 1.333 5.333 0.2238 0.2238 448 0.4812 962
10 2000 10 40 1.000 4.000 0.2042 0.2042 408 0.4000 800
12.5 2000 10 40 0.800 3.200 0.1843 0.1843 369 0.3386 677
15 2000 10 40 0.667 2.667 0.1658 0.1658 332 0.2909 582
17.5 2000 10 40 0.571 2.286 0.1494 0.1494 299 0.2530 506
20 2000 10 40 0.500 2.000 0.1350 0.1350 270 0.2222 444
22.5 2000 10 40 0.444 1.778 0.1224 0.1224 245 0.1969 394
25 2000 10 40 0.400 1.600 0.1114 0.1114 223 0.1758 352
27.5 2000 10 40 0.364 1.455 0.1017 0.1017 203 0.1580 316
30 2000 10 40 0.333 1.333 0.0931 0.0931 186 0.1429 286
32.5 2000 10 40 0.308 1.231 0.0856 0.0856 171 0.1298 260
35 2000 10 40 0.286 1.143 0.0788 0.0788 158 0.1185 237
37.5 2000 10 40 0.267 1.067 0.0728 0.0728 146 0.1087 217
40 2000 10 40 0.250 1.000 0.0674 0.0674 135 0.1000 200
16-26
RATE OF CONSOLIDATION ESSENTIALS
Governing Differential Equation (Terzaghi, 1925)
∂ue/∂t = cv (∂2ue/∂z2)
where:
ue = excess pore water stress (psf or kPa)
cv = coefficient of consolidation (ft2/yr or m2/yr) = k (1 + eo)/avγw = k/mvγw
(note: cv is normally derived from a Casagrande (1938) or Taylor (1948) analysis
of laboratory oedometer data)
eo = initial void ratio
γw = unit weight of water (lb/ft3)
k = coefficient of permeability or hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec)
av = coefficient of compressibility (ft2/lb or m2/kN) = de/dσ’ = Δe/Δσ′
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility (ft2/lb or m2/kN) = dε/dσ’ = Δε/Δσ′
t = time coordinate (yr)
z = depth coordinate (ft or m) = depth below the upper surface of the clay
layer under consideration
Simplified Differential Equation in terms of Dimensionless Parameters
∂ue/∂T = ∂2ue/∂Z2
where:
T = time factor = cvt/Hd2
Z = depth factor = z/Hd
Hd = length of the longest drainage path (ft or m)
(note: Hd = H for single drainage and Hd = H/2 for double drainage)
H = thickness of the clay layer under consideration
17-1
Figure 17.1: Rate Parameters Defined
17-2
Traditional Items of Primary Interest
1. The shear strength at some specific depth z and some specific time t
following application of a total stress increment Δσ. Shear strength is related
to effective stress which, in turn, is related to excess pore water stress
through the relations:
σv = σvo + Δσ
u = uo + ue
σv′ = σvo′ + Δσv′ = σvo′ + (Δσ - ue)
where:
σvo = initial vertical total stress (prior to application of Δσ) = Σγihi

uo = initial pore water stress (prior to application of Δσ) = hpgw = zwγw
σvo′ = initial vertical effective stress (prior to application of Δσ) = σvo - uo
2. The consolidation settlement ρct at some specific time following application of

a total stress increment. Consolidation settlement at t < ∞ is related to
ultimate consolidation settlement at t = ∞ through the relation:
ρct = U ρc
where:
U = average degree of consolidation at time t = U(ue) = U(T) = U(cv, t, Hd)
17-3
Figure 17.2: Mathematical Solution for Initial Excess Pore Water Stress
17-4
17-5
17-6
EXACT SOLUTIONS
Obtained by Integration of Equation B-2-13 for ue(z, t)
Given T, Find U Given U, Find T

T U% T U% U% T U% T
0 0 0.300 61.32 5 0.0020 55 0.239
0.005 7.88 0.400 69.79 10 0.0078 60 0.286
0.025 17.89 0.500 76.40 15 0.0177 65 0.342
0.050 25.21 0.600 81.56 20 0.0314 70 0.403
0.075 30.89 0.700 85.59 25 0.0491 75 0.477
0.100 35.68 0.800 88.74 30 0.0707 80 0.567
0.125 39.89 0.900 91.20 35 0.0962 85 0.684
0.150 43.70 1.000 93.13 40 0.126 90 0.848
0.175 47.18 1.500 98.00 45 0.159 95 1.129
0.200 50.14 2.000 99.42 50 0.197 100 ∞
APPROXIMATE FORMULAS FOR AVERAGE DEGREE OF CONSOLIDATION U

(for ueo = Δσv = constant with depth)
After Casagrande (1938) and Taylor (1948)
Given T, Find U
(eg: determine the consolidation settlement during the first x years)
T Range Equation
T ≤ 0.283 ∼ 0.286 U ≈ (4T/π)1/2
0.283 ∼ 0.286 ≤ T U% ≈ 100 - 10[(1.781-T)/0.933]
Given U, Find T
(eg: determine the time required for x inches of consolidation settlement)
U Range Equation
0 ≤ U ≤ 0.60 T ≈ πU2/4
60% ≤ U% ≤ 100% T ≈ 1.781 - 0.933log(100-U%)
17-7
17-8
TAYLOR’S METHOD FOR ESTIMATING cv
(Square Root of Time Method)
1. Plot dial reading vs time1/2. For best resolution, consider data for t ≤ 8 hours
only.
2. Construct a tangent to the longest linear portion of the curve. Project this line
backward to point Ro on the dial reading axis and forward to point to on the
time axis.
3. Construct a line that originates at Ro and terminates at 1.15to.
4. The point of intersection between this second line and the curve defines t90
(the time corresponding to an average consolidation of U = 90%).
5. Compute the coefficient of consolidation cv = T90Hd2/t90 = 0.848Hd2/t90.
17-9
CASAGRANDE’S METHOD FOR ESTIMATING cv
(Log Time Method)
1. Plot dial reading vs log(time).

2. Determine the dial reading R1 corresponding to some small time t1 and the
dial reading R2 corresponding to time t2 = 4t1.
3. Determine the dial reading Ro corresponding to t = 0 from the relation
Ro = R1 - (R2 - R1).
4. Construct tangents to the linear portion of the primary consolidation curve and
the linear portion of the secondary compression curve. The point of
intersection of these two tangents defines R100.
5. Construct a line parallel to the time axis that passes through the point
R50 = (Ro + R100)/2. The point of intersection between this line and the curve
defines t50 (the time corresponding to an average consolidation of U = 50%).
6. Compute the coefficient of consolidation cv = T50Hd2/t50 = 0.197Hd2/t50.
17-10
Figure 17.3: Typical Values of Cc, Cα, and cv
17-11
17-12
Example 17.1
A 10′ thick layer of saturated, soft clay (eo = 1.00, γ = 112 pcf, Cr = 0.050,
Cc = 0.40, OCR = 1, cv = 2.5 ft2/yr) is overlain by a 6′ thick layer of silty sand
(γ = 116 pcf above the GWT and γ = 124 pcf below the GWT) and underlain by a
4′ thick layer of sandy gravel (γ = 128 pcf). The groundwater table lies at a depth
of 4′ below grade. Estimate the consolidation settlement that would ultimately
result from the placement of an extensive engineered fill which produces a
uniform loading of 500 psf to the native soil. Also estimate the percent of this
ultimate settlement that would occur during the first 0.5, 1, 2, and 10 years.
Calculate the ultimate consolidation settlement:
σvo′ = σv - u
σvo′ = (4 ft)(116 pcf) + (2 ft)(124-62.4 pcf) + (5 ft)(112-62.4 pcf) = 835
psf
ρ∞ = [HCc / (1 + eo)] log [(σvo′ + Δσ) / σvo′]
ρ∞ = (10 ft)(12 in/ft)(0.40)(log 1335/835)/(2) = 4.89 in
17-13
Calculate the consolidation settlement at t = 0.5, 1, 2, and 10 years:
1 2 3 4
Time
Time t U ρt
Factor
(years) (percent) (inches)
T
0.5 0.050 25.2 1.23
1 0.100 35.7 1.75
2 0.200 50.4 2.46
10 1.000 93.1 4.55
Equations for Columns 2-3-4 Calculations
T = cv t / Hd2 (where Hd = H / 2 = 5′)
U = (4T / π)1/2 (or an alternate form)
ρt = U ρ∞
17-14
Example 17.2: Effect of Δσ
Consider the profile of Example 17.1. If the applied loading was halved
(Δσ = 250 psf rather than Δσ = 500 psf), would the rate of consolidation:
Increase
Decrease
Remain Unchanged
100
Degree of Consolidation U (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time t (years)
17-15
Example 17.3: Effect of Drainage Path Length
Consider the profile of Example 17.1. If the 4′ thick layer of sandy gravel was
replaced with impervious rock, would the ultimate consolidation settlement:
Increase
Decrease
Remain Unchanged
and would the rate of consolidation:
Increase
Decrease
Remain Unchanged
17-16
Example 17.4: Typical PE Problem
A 20-foot thick layer of saturated clay is overlain by a 10-foot thick surface layer
of silty sand and underlain by impervious rock. A laboratory oedometer test was
performed on a 1-inch thick doubly-drained sample of this clay. Taylor’s method
of data reduction indicated that 50% consolidation occurred 8.5 minutes after a
load increment had been applied. How long will it take for 90% consolidation to
occur in the field?
17-17
Example 17.5: Comprehensive Analysis
A 20′ thick layer of saturated, soft clay (eo = 0.70, γ = 112.4 pcf, Cr = 0.050,
Cc = 0.40, OCR = 1, cv = 4.0 ft2/yr) is overlain by a 5′ thick layer of silty sand
(γ = 120 pcf) and underlain by impervious rock. The groundwater table lies at the
sand-clay interface. Estimate the consolidation settlement that would occur
within the first 20 years following the placement of an extensive engineered fill
which produces a uniform loading of 1000 psf to the native soil. Also estimate
the vertical effective stress and pore water stress distributions at this point in
time.
17-18
17-19
17-20
CREEP OR SECONDARY COMPRESSION
(Volumetric Compression at Constant Effective Stress)
ρα = [HCα / (1+ ep)][log (t / tp)] = HCαε log (t / tp)
where
H = thickness of the creeping layer
Cα = secondary compression index

Cα = slope of the void ratio vs log (time) curve
Cα = Δe / Δlog t
(consult Tables 8.3 and 9.4 on page 17-11 for typical values)
ep = void ratio at 100% consolidation

(from the void ratio vs log (time) curve)
Cαε = modified secondary compression index

Cαε = slope of the vertical strain vs log (time) curve
Cαε = Δε / Δlog t = Cα / (1+ ep)
(consult Figure 18.2 for typical values based on natural water content)
tp = time for 100% consolidation

(from the void ratio vs log (time) curve)
t = time at which ρα is to be calculated (t > tp)
18-1
Figure 18.2: Secondary Compression versus Natural Water Content
18-2
ELIMINATING, REDUCING, OR COPING WITH SETTLEMENT
Table 19.1: Alternatives
Method Comments
To bypass the compressible layers and

Use deep foundation elements
transfer the stress increment to
(drilled shafts or driven piles)
competent soil and/or rock.
To reduce or eliminate the net stress
increment.
Use a “floating” foundation
The stress associated with one story of
(excavate for subsurface stories)
structure is comparable to the stress
produced by 1-2 feet of soil.
Preload the site To induce consolidation before
(install wick drains) construction of the structure begins.
To reduce the compressibility of the

soil. Hayward-Baker is the premiere
Treat the soil in-place
specialist in the area of ground
improvement.
To eliminate the problematic soil.
Excavate the compressible soil and
Can be very costly or have significant
replace with an engineered fill
environmental impacts.
Use leveling jacks
To compensate for settlement.
(between the structure and the
(see the Kansai Airport video)
foundation)
Use a stiff foundation
To reduce differential settlement.
(with deep grade beams)
Use ductile structural members To remain serviceable under relatively

(steel frames, asphalt floors, etc.) large deformation.
19-1
19-2
19-3
19-4
19-5
19-6
ACI 318-05
Code Citations Pertaining to Reinforced Concrete Spread Footing Design
7.6.1 The minimum clear spacing between parallel bars in a layer shall be db
but not less than 1″. [db = bar diameter.]
7.6.5 The maximum bar spacing shall be 18″ (for footings with a thickness of
t ≥ 6″).
7.7.1 The minimum concrete cover at the footing base and sides shall be 3″
(for concrete cast against and permanently exposed to soil).
7.12.1 Shrinkage and temperature reinforcement shall be provided in

structural slabs where the flexural reinforcement extends in one
direction only. [Hence, shrinkage/temperature steel is generally not
required in footings.]
8.1.1 The structural concrete member shall be proportioned for adequate

strength in accordance with the provisions of this code, using the load
factors and strength reduction factors specified in Chapter 9.
9.2.1 Design of the structural concrete member shall be based on the

factored load combination that provides for the greatest required
strength U. The following factored load combinations shall be
considered:
U = 1.4D + 1.4F (Eqn 9-1)

U = 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or R or S) (Eqn 9-2)
U = 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R or S) + (1.0L or 0.8W) (Eqn 9-3)
U = 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.6W + 0.5(Lr or R or S) (Eqn 9-4)
U = 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 0.2S (Eqn 9-5)
U = 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.6W (Eqn 9-6)
U = 0.9D + 1.6H + 1.0E (Eqn 9-7)
where: D = dead load, E = earthquake (seismic) load, F = fluid load,

H = soil load, L = live load, Lr = roof live load, R = rain load, S = snow
load, T = temperature (and/or creep and/or differential settlement)
load, and W = wind load. [See Section 9.2.1 for exceptions.]
Design of the structural concrete member may also be based on the

factored load combinations and strength reduction factors of ACI 318-
99.
20-1
9.3.2 The strength reduction factor φ shall be as follows:
φ = 0.90 (tension controlled sections with εt ≥ 0.005)

φ = 0.75 (shear and torsion)
φ = 0.65 (bearing on concrete)
[This is a partial list of factors relevant to footing design only. Please

consult Section 9.3.2 for a complete list.]
10.2 Design assumptions regarding the distribution and magnitude of

strains and stresses in reinforced concrete members (see Figure 20.1).
The ratio of reinforcement at the balanced strain condition is:
ρb = (0.85β1fc′/fy)(87,000)/(87,000+fy)
β1 = 0.85 for fc′ ≤ 4000 psi

β1 = 0.85 - [0.05(fc′-4000)/1000] ≥ 0. 65 for fc′ > 4000 psi
Figure 20.1: The Balanced Strain Condition
10.3.5 A non-prestressed footing section is tension controlled if the strain in

the extreme tension steel is εt ≥ 0.004. [This replaces the ACI 318-99
requirement that the ratio of reinforcement provided ρ = As / bd shall
not exceed ρmax = 0.75ρb.]
10.5.4 The ratio of reinforcement provided shall not be less than ρmin = 0.0020
(Grade 40 or 50 bars) or ρmin = 0.0018 (Grade 60 bars).
20-2
11.1.1 The design of cross sections subject to shear shall be based on
φ(Vc + Vs) ≥ Vu. [Since shear reinforcement (via stirrups) is not
normally used in footings, Vs = 0, and this check becomes φVc ≥ Vu.]
11.1.3.1 Sections located less than a distance d from the face of a support may
be designed using the value of Vu computed at a distance d from the
face of a support. [d = effective depth.]
11.3.1.1 The nominal shear strength provided by the concrete shall be based
on Vc = 2bwd(fc′)1/2. [bw = B for square footings.]
11.12.1 The shear strength of footings in the vicinity of columns, concentrated

loads, or reactions is governed by the more severe of 11.12.1.1 and
11.12.1.2.
11.12.1.1 For one-way (beam) action, 11.1 through 11.5 govern.
11.12.1.2 For two-way (punching) action, 11.12.2 through 11.12.6 govern. The
critical section is located at a distance of d/2 from the edges of the
column.
11.12.2.1 For non-prestressed footings and slabs, Vc shall be based on

Vc = αbod(fc′)1/2 where α is the smallest of:
α = [2 + (4/βc)] (Eqn 11-33)

α = [2 + (αsd/bo)] (Eqn 11-34)
α = 4 (Eqn 11-35)
and where:
bo = the perimeter of the critical section

αs = 40 (interior cols), 30 (edge cols), 20 (corner cols)
βc = the ratio of the long side to the short side of the column
[Equation 11-35 governs for square (βc = 1) columns that have a width
of c ≤ 1.5d.]
12.2.1 Development length ld (in inches) for tensile reinforcement shall be

determined from either 12.2.2 or 12.2.3; however, ld shall not be less
than 12″.
20-3
12.2.2 Development length ld (in inches) for tensile reinforcement (having a
clear cover of at least db and a clear spacing of at least 2db) shall be:
ld = αβλγdbfy/20(fc′)1/2
where αβλ = 1 for non epoxy-coated bottom bars in normal-weight

concrete and γ = 0.8 (for #6 bars and smaller) or 1.0 (for #7 bars and
larger). [See Sections 12.2.1-12.2.4 for other cases.]
12.2.5 The reduction factor for excess reinforcement is (As-required)/(As-provided).
15.3 For location of critical sections for moment, shear, and development of
reinforcement in footings, it shall be permitted to treat circular or
regular polygon-shaped columns or pedestals as square members with
the same cross-sectional area.
15.4.2 The maximum factored moment (Mu) for an isolated footing shall be
computed from a consideration of equilibrium of the free body using
the following critical sections:
(a) At the face of the column, pedestal, or wall, for footings that
support a concrete column, pedestal, or wall;
(b) Halfway between the middle and edge of the wall, for
footings that support a masonry wall;
(c) Halfway between the face of the column and edge of the
steel base plate, for footings that support a column with steel
base plate.
15.4.3 In one-way footings and two-way square footings, the reinforcement

shall be distributed uniformly across the entire width.
15.4.4 In two-way rectangular footings, the reinforcement shall be distributed

in accordance with 15.4.4.1 and 15.4.4.2.
15.5.2 The critical section for shear shall be measured from the face of the
column, pedestal, or wall, for footings that support a column, pedestal,
or wall. The critical section for shear shall be measured from the
location defined in 15.4.2(c) for footings that support a column with a
steel base plate.
15.6.3 Critical sections for development of reinforcement shall be at the

locations defined in 15.4.2.
20-4
15.8.1 Forces and moments at base of column, pedestal, or wall shall be
transferred to footing by means of bearing, dowels, reinforcement,
and/or mechanical connectors. [See Sections 10.17, 12.3 and 15.8 for
details.]
20-5
Figure 20.2: Critical Sections for Moment by ACI 15.4.2
(after PCA, 2002)
Figure 20.3: Distribution of Flexural Reinforcement by ACI 15.4.3 & 15.4.4

(after PCA, 2002)
20-6
Figure 20.4: Critical Sections for Shear by ACI 15.5.2
(after PCA, 2002)
20-7
REINFORCED CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN
In order to prevent the possibility of errors resulting from incompatible units, use
a consistent set of units (such as inches and pounds) throughout.
Step 1: Establish the plan dimensions (width B and length L) and embedment
depth (D) from geotechnical stability considerations.
The maximum contact stress beneath the footing must be no greater than
the allowable bearing stress. The total settlement of the footing (as well
as the differential settlement between adjacent footings) must also be
within the permissible ranges.
Step 2: Establish the effective depth d.
The effective depth is determined from a consideration of the shear

strength of the concrete. In general, the analyst must check for the
possibility of both one-way (beam-type) action and two-way (punching-
type) action. The check that gives the greatest d value governs.
Determine the design bearing stress due only to the design (or factored)
load Qu:
qu = Qu/(BL)
If the column also carries a design moment Mu, use the basic beam-
column relation qu = (Qu/A) ± (Muy/I) to determine the design bearing
stress distribution.
20-8
Check for one-way (beam-type) action. Pass a plane parallel to the
smallest plan dimension of the footing at a distance d from the column
face or bearing area (as shown in Figure 20.4). For a footing length of L
and a column width of c in the L-direction, ACI 11.1.1-11.3.1 and the
critical free body give:
φVc ≥ Vu
φ[2Bd(fc′)1/2] ≥ quB(L-c-2d)/2
Set φ = 0.75 (for shear), and recast the inequality to solve for d:
d ≥ [qu(L-c)] / [(3(fc′)1/2) + (2qu)]
Check for two-way (punching-type) action. The perimeter of the critical

section lies at a distance d/2 from the column face or bearing area (as
shown in Figure 20.4). For a square c by c column, ACI 11.12.1.2,
11.12.2.1, and the critical free body give:
φVc ≥ Vu
φ[4bod(fc′)1/2] ≥ Qu - qu(c + d)2
φ[(4)(2)(c1 + c2 + 2d)(d)(fc′)1/2] ≥ Qu - qu(c + d)2
Set φ = 0.75 (for shear), and cast the inequality in the form of a quadratic
equation in d (xd2 + yd + z ≥ 0). Then, solve for d:
[12(fc′)1/2 + qu] d2 + [12c(fc′)1/2 + 2cqu] d + [c2qu - Qu] ≥ 0
d ≥ [-y + (y2 - 4xz)1/2] / 2x
As noted earlier, the larger of the two computed d values must be used to
ensure that the footing is thick enough to prevent either one-way or two-
way shear-induced failure.
20-9
Step 3: Establish the required area of flexural steel As.
The area of reinforcing steel needed is determined from a consideration of

equilibrium (ΣFh = 0) for the stress block shown in Figure 20.5c.
Figure 20.5: Actual and Simplified Stress Distributions

(after Wang and Salmon, 1998)
φMn ≥ Mu
φAsfy[d – (0.5Asfy / 0.85Bfc′)] ≥ Mu
The maximum factored moment Mu is determined from a consideration of

moment equilibrium (ΣM = 0) of the critical section defined in ACI 15.4.2
(or Figure 20.2).
Set φ = 0.90 (for tension-controlled flexure) and cast the inequality in the
form of a quadratic equation in As. Then, use the standard closed-form
method to solve for As:
[0.5294fy2 /B fc′] As2 - [0.9dfy] As + Mu ≥ 0
20-10
The area of steel to be distributed across the entire width (or length) of the
footing may also be found by calculating the coefficient of resistance Rn
and reinforcement ratio ρ:
Rn = Mu / φBd2 = Mu / 0.90Bd2
ρ = (0.85fc′ / fy)(1 - [1 - (2Rn / 0.85fc′)]1/2)
As = ρBd
Check to ensure that the reinforcement ratio and strain in the extreme
tension steel are greater than the required minimums (ρ ≥ ρmin and
εt ≥ 0.004), where:
εt = [(fy / 29,000 ksi) + 0.003][ρb / ρ] - 0.003
Step 4: Establish the reinforcement schedule.
Maximum bar size is determined from a consideration of development

length. A bar can only be used if its modified development length is less
than the available length outside the critical section. Examine a few
possible designs to establish an optimal or nearly optimal specification.
Determine the total number of bars to be used by dividing the total area of
steel by the area of one bar (N = As / Ab). Determine the center-to-center
bar spacing by dividing the available width by the number of inter-bar
spaces (s = (B - 6″ - db) / (N -1)). Determine the overall footing thickness by
adding one and one-half bar diameters and the clear cover to the
previously computed value of effective depth (t = d + 1.5db + 3″).
By convention, bar count N is specified to the whole bar, bar spacing s is

specified to the tenth of an inch, and slab thickness t is specified to the
whole inch.
20-11
Figure 20.6: A FBD-Based Interpretation of Development Length
20-12
Table 20.1: Development Length (in inches) for Tensile Reinforcement
(ACI Category A with αβλ = 1)
fy = 40,000 psi fy = 60,000 psi

fc′ (psi) fc′ (psi)
Bar # db (in) 3000 4000 5000 3000 4000 5000
3 0.375 12.0 12.0 12.0 16.4 14.2 12.7
4 0.500 14.6 12.6 12.0 21.9 19.0 17.0
5 0.625 18.3 15.8 14.1 27.4 23.7 21.2
6 0.750 21.9 19.0 17.0 32.9 28.5 25.5
7 0.875 32.0 27.7 24.7 47.9 41.5 37.1
8 1.000 36.5 31.6 28.3 54.8 47.4 42.4
9 1.128 41.2 35.7 31.9 61.8 53.5 47.9
10 1.270 46.4 40.2 35.9 69.6 60.2 53.9
11 1.410 51.5 44.6 39.9 77.2 66.9 59.8
14 1.693 61.8 53.5 47.9 92.7 80.3 71.8
18 2.257 82.4 71.4 63.8 124 107 95.8
20-13
Example 20.1: Footing Design by ACI 318-05
Problem Statement: A square reinforced concrete footing will carry a service

dead load of 300 kips and a service live load of 200 kips transferred to the footing
by an 18-inch square column. A full geotechnical analysis has already been
performed, and this analysis has shown that a 10-foot wide square footing (with a
3-foot embedment depth) will provide adequate safety with respect to both
bearing-type failure and settlement. Identify an appropriate reinforcement
schedule and footing thickness according to ACI 318-05.
Solution: Steps 2-4 of the design methodology (detailed on pages 20-8 through
20-11) have been completed with the aid of an Excel program, and both the
sequence of operations and the specific values computed are detailed on the
following pages. The solution corresponds to 3 ksi concrete and 60 ksi
reinforcing steel. The use of 4 ksi concrete may also be appropriate.
Table 20.2: Structural Specifications for Example 20.1
Item Symbol Value
Required Capacity U 1.2 D + 1.6 L
Column Design Load Qu 680 kips
Column Width c 18 in
Footing Width B 10 ft
Effective Depth d 23″
Required Area of Steel As 6.09 in2
Number of Bars N 11 - #7 bars each way
Bar Spacing s 11.3″ on center
Slab Thickness t 28″
20-14
Example 20.1
Reinforced Concrete Footing Design by ACI 318-05
Specify Footing Materials

f c' psi 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
fy psi 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000
Specify Load & Column Size
Pu kips 680 680 680 680 680 680 680 680
c inches 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Specify Footing Plan Dimension
B feet 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Establish Effective Depth
qu psi 47.22 47.22 47.22 47.22 47.22 47.22 47.22 47.22
d1 min inches 18.61 18.61 18.61 18.61 18.61 18.61 18.61 18.61
x 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704
y 13531 13531 13531 13531 13531 13531 13531 13531
z -664700 -664700 -664700 -664700 -664700 -664700 -664700 -664700
d2 min inches 22.58 22.58 22.58 22.58 22.58 22.58 22.58 22.58
ddesign inches 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Establish Required Area of Steel
Mu in-kip 7370 7370 7370 7370 7370 7370 7370 7370
Rn psi 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129
ρ 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
ρmin 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018
check ρ okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay
β1 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
ρb 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214
20-15
Example 20.1
εt 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461 0.0461

check εt okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay
2
As in 6.09 6.09 6.09 6.09 6.09 6.09 6.09 6.09
Establish Reinforcement Schedule
and Footing Thickness
Check for s < 18" and ld < l d max
ld max inches 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0
Trials
bar # 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
db inches 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875 1.000 1.128 1.270
2
Ab in 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.44 0.60 0.79 1.00 1.27
N 56 32 20 14 11 8 7 5
s inches 2.1 3.7 6.0 8.7 11.3 16.1 18.8 28.2
γ 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ld-basic inches 16.4 21.9 27.4 32.9 47.9 54.8 61.8 69.6
ld-modified inches 16.2 21.2 27.2 32.4 44.1 53.1 53.8 66.9
Aused/Areqd 1.02 1.03 1.01 1.02 1.09 1.03 1.15 1.04
t inches 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28
check okay okay okay okay okay no good no good no good
20-16
Look-Up Table: Bar, Concrete, and Steel Data
Bar Diameter fc' β1 fy

ρmin
# (inches) (psi) (psi)
3 0.375 0 0.85 40000 0.0020
4 0.500 1000 0.85 50000 0.0020
5 0.625 2000 0.85 60000 0.0018
6 0.750 3000 0.85 Do Not Edit
7 0.875 4000 0.85 This Worksheet
8 1.000 5000 0.80
9 1.128 6000 0.75
10 1.270 7000 0.70
11 1.410 8000 0.65
14 1.693 9000 0.65
18 2.257 Do Not Edit
Do Not Edit This Worksheet
This Worksheet
20-17
=VLOOKUP(C35,'Bar Properties'!$A$3:'Bar Properties'!$B$13,2,FALSE)
20-18
Example 20.2: Estimating Slab Thickness
A reinforced concrete spread footing (with fc’ = 3 ksi) must support a vertical
design load of 300 kips. Use the CRSI design tables to estimate the required
footing width B and thickness t.
qsafe B t
(psf) (ft) (in)
1000 16.0 21
2000 10.5 20
3000 8.5 20
4000 7.5 20
5000 6.5 20
6000 6.0 20
This study demonstrates that footing thickness is primarily related to column load
Q (and fc’). This makes sense since thickness is computed from effective depth,
and effective depth is determined from a consideration of vertical shear.
20-19
Example 20.3: Initial Estimate of Base Slab Thickness
A spread footing must support a vertical design load of 1000 kips. What base
slab thickness t would you assume for the purpose of completing your
geotechnical stability (bearing capacity and settlement) analyses?
t ≈ 35~36 inches
Using the CRSI design tables to estimate t allows the analyst to effectively
“uncouple” the geotechnical stability calculations from the structural stability
calculations. Do not make the mistake of initially underestimating t. Your footing
design will be perfectly safe if, for example, you initially use t = 36″ for your
bearing capacity and settlement checks and finally specify t = 30” after
completing your ACI-compliant structural calculations.
The difference between the unit weight of the concrete and the unit weight of the
soil cover will typically be about 30~40 pcf. Hence, overestimating t by a half-foot
will not normally have much effect on your geotechnical stability calculations.
20-20
Example 20.4: Comparison of ACI 318-99 and 318-05 Designs
A square reinforced concrete footing will carry a service dead load of 300 kips
and a service live load of 200 kips transferred to the footing by an 18-inch square
column. A full geotechnical analysis has already been performed, and this
analysis has shown that a 10-foot wide square footing (with a 3.0-foot
embedment depth) will provide adequate safety with respect to both bearing-type
failure and settlement.
Identify an appropriate reinforcement schedule and footing thickness according

to ACI 318-99 and ACI 318-05.
ACI 318-99 ACI 318-05
U 1.4 D + 1.7 L 1.2 D + 1.6 L
Qu 760 kips 680 kips
d 23″ 23″
As 6.83 in2 6.09 in2
N 12 - #7 bars each way 11 - #7 bars each way
s 10.3″ on center 11.3″ on center
t 28″ 28″
The 1999 version of the ACI code leads to a design that requires a slightly
(~10%) greater amount of reinforcing steel. The 318-99 design is, thus,
somewhat more conservative that the 318-05 design.
20-21
20-22
Example 20.4
Specify Footing Materials

f c' psi 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
fy psi 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000 60000
Specify Load & Column Size
Pu kips 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 760
cspecified inches 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
cmin inches 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
cdesign inches 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Specify Footing Plan Dimension
B feet 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Establish Effective Depth
qu psi 52.78 52.78 52.78 52.78 52.78 52.78 52.78 52.78
d1 min inches 18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45
α 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
a 798 798 798 798 798 798 798 798
b 15308 15308 15308 15308 15308 15308 15308 15308
c -742900 -742900 -742900 -742900 -742900 -742900 -742900 -742900
d2 min inches 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40 22.40
ddesign inches 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Establish Required Area of Steel
Mu in-kip/ft 824 824 824 824 824 824 824 824
2
As in /ft 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
ρ 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
ρmin 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018
20-23
Example 20.4
β1 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85

ρb 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214
ρmax 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160
check ρ okay okay okay okay okay okay okay okay
Ast 2
in 6.83 6.83 6.83 6.83 6.83 6.83 6.83 6.83
Establish Reinforcement Schedule
and Footing Thickness
Check for s < 18" and ld < l d max
ld max inches 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0
Trials
bar # 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
db inches 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875 1.000 1.128 1.270
Ab 2
in 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.44 0.60 0.79 1.00 1.27
N 62 35 23 16 12 9 7 6
s inches 1.9 3.3 5.2 7.6 10.3 14.1 18.8 22.5
γ 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
ld-basic inches 16.4 21.9 27.4 32.9 47.9 54.8 61.8 69.6
ld-modified inches 16.4 21.8 26.5 31.8 45.4 52.9 60.3 62.5
Aused/Areqd 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.03 1.02 1.11
t inches 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28
check okay okay okay okay okay no good no good no good
20-24
Appendix A: Typical PE Exam Problems
Appendix B: Assignments and Solutions

CE 481 - Lecture Notes - DeNatale PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CE 481 - Lecture Notes - DeNatale PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

J.S. DeNatale, Ph.D., P.E.

Academic Year 2009-10

11. Site Investigation

Term Symbol Basic Definition Limits or Typical Values

Water Content w (Mw / Ms) (100%) 0≤w≤∞%

Density of Solids ρs Ms / Vs 2.60 ~ 2.75 Mg/m3

Density of Water ρw Mw / Vw 1.00 Mg/m3

Dry Density ρd or ρdry Ms / Vt

Moist Density ρt Mt / Vt ρdry ≤ ρt ≤ ρsat

Saturated Density ρsat (Ms + ρwVv) / Vt

Submerged Density ρsub ρt - ρw ≈ ρsat - ρw

2.60 ~ 2.65 (gravel/sand)

Void Ratio e Vv / Vs 0≤e≤∞

Porosity n (Vv / Vt) (100%) 0 ≤ n ≤ 100 %

Degree of Saturation S (Vw / Vv) (100%) 0 ≤ S ≤ 100 %

Term British Units (pcf) SI Units (Mg/m3 = g/cm3)

Key Compaction Relations

γd or ρd γd = Gγw / [1 + (wG / S)] ρd = Sρsρw / (Sρw + wρs)

w w = S (Gγw - γd) / Gγd w = S (ρsρw - ρdρw) / (ρdρs)

S S = wGγd / (Gγw - γd) S = wρdρs / (ρsρw - ρdρw)

Key Unit Weight and Density Relations for Stress Calculations

γt or ρt γt = (G + Se) γw / (1 + e) ρt = (ρs + Seρw) / (1 + e)

γsat or ρsat γsat = (G + e) γw / (1 + e) = γd + nγw ρsat = (ρs + eρw) / (1 + e) = ρd + nρw

Figure 12.1: Shallow vs Deep Foundations

Footprint (Width B and Length L)

Strength of Materials fc′ (Concrete) and fy (Steel)

REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING DESIGN

In determining the minimum plan dimensions or optimal “footprint” of a shallow

1. a rigorous geotechnical analysis which involves: (a) mobilization of field

2. a simplified code-based analysis which involves: (a) acquisition of a

The earliest theoretical work related to bearing capacity was conducted by

infinitely long strip footing (L = ∞)

The phenomenon of bearing failure in a foundation soil is highly amenable to

qult = cNcscdcbcicgcrc + 0.5γ′BNγsγdγbγiγgγrγ + σvD′Nqsqdqbqiqgqrq

Footprint Bearing Capacity Equation

Infinite Strip qult = 1.0cNc + 0.5γ′BNγ + σvD′Nq

Square qult = 1.3cNc + 0.4γ′BNγ + σvD′Nq

Circular qult = 1.3cNc + 0.3γ′BNγ + σvD′Nq

B = footing width (smallest plan dimension) or diameter

Loading Condition Bearing Capacity Factors

a = e (0.75π - 0.50φ) tanφ

Table 13.2: Values of Terzaghi’s Nc, Nγ, and Nq

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

qult = cNcscdcbcicgcrc + 0.5γ′BNγsγdγbγiγgγrγ + σvD′Nqsqdqbqiqgqrq

Bearing Capacity Factors Shape Factors

Nc = (Nq - 1)(cot φ) sc = 1 + (B / L)(Nq / Nc)

Depth Factors Load Inclination Factors

dq = 1 + 2 (D / B)(tan φ)(1 - sin φ)2

Base Inclination Factors Ground Inclination Factors

Table 13.4: Values of Vesic’s Nc, Nγ, and Nq

Figure 13.1: Definition of Terms for Shallow GWT Analysis

Table 13.5: UBC Table 18-1-A

Table 13.6: Comparison of UBC and USCS Classifications

Description and Quantitative

GM, GC Dirty Gravels and All Sands

Inorganic Fine-Grained Soils

B = footing width (in plan; B ≤ L)

Figure 13.2: Elevation (Profile) View of a Footing

Table 13.7: Calculation of qallowable (Table 18-1-A Footnotes 2 and 7)

UBC Class Allowable or Safe Bearing Pressure

3 or 4 (footnote 2) qall = [qtab][1 + 0.2(B-1) + 0.2(D-1)] ≤ 3qtab