Mat Foundation

8 Mat Foundations
8.1 Introduction
U nder normal conditions, square and rectangular footings such as those described in
Chapters 4 and 5 are economical for supporting columns and walls. However, under
certain circumstances, it may be desirable to construct a footing that supports a line of
two or more columns. These footings are referred to as combined footings. When more
than one line of columns is supported by a concrete slab, it is called a mat foundation.
Combined footings can be classified generally under the following categories:
a. Rectangular combined footing
b. Trapezoidal combined footing
c. Strap footing
Mat foundations are generally used with soil that has a low bearing capacity. A brief over-
view of the principles of combined footings is given in Section 8.2, followed by a more
detailed discussion on mat foundations.
8.2 Combined Footings

Rectangular Combined Footing
In several instances, the load to be carried by a column and the soil bearing capacity are
such that the standard spread footing design will require extension of the column founda-
tion beyond the property line. In such a case, two or more columns can be supported on
a single rectangular foundation, as shown in Figure 8.1. If the net allowable soil pressure
is known, the size of the foundation sB 3 Ld can be determined in the following manner:
a. Determine the area of the foundation
Q1 1 Q2
A5 (8.1)
qnetsalld
353
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
354 Chapter 8: Mat Foundations
Q1 1 Q2
L2 L1
X
L3
Q1 Q2
Section
B ? qnet(all) /unit length
Property B Plan
line
Figure 8.1 Rectangular combined footing
where
Q1 , Q2 5 column loads
qnetsalld 5 net allowable soil bearing capacity
b. Determine the location of the resultant of the column loads. From Figure 8.1,
Q 2 L3
X5 (8.2)
Q1 1 Q2
c. For a uniform distribution of soil pressure under the foundation, the resultant of the
column loads should pass through the centroid of the foundation. Thus,
L 5 2sL2 1 Xd (8.3)
where L 5 length of the foundation.
d. Once the length L is determined, the value of L1 can be obtained as follows:
L 1 5 L 2 L2 2 L 3 (8.4)
Note that the magnitude of L2 will be known and depends on the location of the prop-
erty line.
e. The width of the foundation is then
A
B5 (8.5)
L
Trapezoidal Combined Footing

Trapezoidal combined footing (see Figure 8.2) is sometimes used as an isolated spread
foundation of columns carrying large loads where space is tight. The size of the
8.2 Combined Footings 355
Q1 1 Q2
L2 L1
X
L3
Q1 Q2
B2 ? qnet(all) /unit length
B1 ? qnet(all) /unit length
Section
Property
line
B1 B2
L
Plan
Figure 8.2 Trapezoidal combined footing
foundation that will uniformly distribute pressure on the soil can be obtained in the
following manner:
a. If the net allowable soil pressure is known, determine the area of the foundation:
Q1 1 Q2
A5 (8.6)
qnetsalld
From Figure 8.2,
B1 1 B2
A5 L (8.7)
2
b. Determine the location of the resultant for the column loads:

Q 2 L3
X5 (8.8)
Q1 1 Q2
c. From the property of a trapezoid,
1 B 1 B 2 L3
B1 1 2B2
X 1 L2 5 (8.9)
1 2
With known values of A, L, X, and L2 , solve Eqs. (8.7) and (8.9) to obtain B1 and
B2 . Note that, for a trapezoid,
L L
, X 1 L2 ,
3 2
Cantilever Footing
Cantilever footing construction uses a strap beam to connect an eccentrically loaded
column foundation to the foundation of an interior column. (See Figure 8.3). Cantilever
footings may be used in place of trapezoidal or rectangular combined footings
when the allowable soil bearing capacity is high and the distances between the columns
are large.
Section Section
Strap Strap
Strap Plan Strap Plan
(a) (b)
Wall Section
Strap
Strap Plan
(c)
Figure 8.3 Cantilever footing—use of strap beam
8.2 Combined Footings 357
Example 8.1
Refer to Figure 8.1. Given:
Q1 5 400 kN
Q2 5 500 kN
qnet(all) 5 140 kN/m2
L3 5 3.5 m
Based on the location of the property line, it is required that L2 be 1.5 m. Determine the
size (B 3 L) of the rectangular combined footing.
Solution
Area of the foundation required is
Q1 1 Q2 400 1 500
A5 5 5 6.43 m2
qnetsalld 140
Location of the resultant [Eq. (8.2)] is
Q 2 L3 s500ds3.5d
X5 5 < 1.95 m
Q1 1 Q2 400 1 500
For uniform distribution of soil pressure under the foundation from Eq. (8.3), we have
L 5 2sL2 1 Xd 5 2s1.5 1 1.95d 5 6.9 m
Again, from Eq. (8.4),
L1 5 L 2 L2 2 L3 5 6.9 2 1.5 2 3.5 5 1.9 m
Thus,
A 6.43
B5 5 5 0.93 m ■
L 6.9
Example 8.2
Refer to Figure 8.2. Given:
Q1 5 1000 kN
Q2 5 400 kN
L3 5 3 m
qnetsalld 5 120 kN/m2
Based on the space available for construction, it is required that L2 5 1.2 m and L1 5 1 m.
Determine B1 and B2.
Solution
The area of the trapezoidal combined footing required is [Eq. (8.6)]
Q1 1 Q2 1000 1 400
A5 5 5 11.67 m2
qnetsalld 120
L 5 L1 1 L2 1 L3 5 1 1 1.2 1 3 5 5.2 m
From Eq. (8.7),

B1 1 B2
A5 L
2
1 2
B1 1 B2
11.67 5 s5.2d
2
or
B1 1 B2 5 4.49 m(a)
From Eq. (8.8),
Q 2 L3 s400ds3d
X5 5 5 0.857 m
Q1 1 Q2 1000 1 400
Again, from Eq. (8.9),
1 B 1 B 2 L3
B1 1 2B2
X 1 L2 5
1 2
1 B 1 B 215.232
B1 1 2B2
0.857 1 1.2 5
1 2
B1 1 2B2
5 1.187(b)
B1 1 B2
From Eqs. (a) and (b), we have

B1 5 3.65 m
B2 5 0.84 m ■
8.3 Common Types of Mat Foundations

The mat foundation, which is sometimes referred to as a raft foundation, is a combined
footing that may cover the entire area under a structure supporting several columns and
walls. Mat foundations are sometimes preferred for soils that have low load-bearing
capacities, but that will have to support high column or wall loads. Under some conditions,
spread footings would have to cover more than half the building area, and mat foundations
might be more economical. Several types of mat foundations are used currently. Some of
the common ones are shown schematically in Figure 8.4 and include the following:
1. Flat plate (Figure 8.4a). The mat is of uniform thickness.
2. Flat plate thickened under columns (Figure 8.4b).
3. Beams and slab (Figure 8.4c). The beams run both ways, and the columns are
located at the intersection of the beams.
4. Flat plates with pedestals (Figure 8.4d).
5. Slab with basement walls as a part of the mat (Figure 8.4e). The walls act as
stiffeners for the mat.
8.3 Common Types of Mat Foundations 359
Section Section Section
Plan Plan Plan
(a) (b) (c)
Section Section
Plan
Plan
(d) (e)
Figure 8.4 Common types of mat foundations
Mats may be supported by piles, which help reduce the settlement of a structure
built over highly compressible soil. Where the water table is high, mats are often placed
over piles to control buoyancy. Figure 8.5 shows the difference between the depth Df and
the width B of isolated foundations and mat foundations. Figure 8.6 shows a flat-plate mat
foundation under construction.
Df
B
Df
Figure 8.5 Comparison of isolated foundation and mat
B foundation sB 5 width, Df 5 depthd
Figure 8.6 A flat plate mat foundation under construction (Courtesy of Dharma Shakya,
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., Irvine, California)
8.4 Bearing Capacity of Mat Foundations

The gross ultimate bearing capacity of a mat foundation can be determined by the same
equation used for shallow foundations (see Section 4.6), or
qu 5 c9NcFcsFcdFci 1 qNqFqsFqdFqi 1 12BNFsFdFi [Eq. (4.26)]
(Chapter 3 gives the proper values of the bearing capacity factors, as well as the shape
depth, and load inclination factors.) The term B in Eq. (4.26) is the smallest dimension of
the mat. The net ultimate capacity of a mat foundation is
qnetsud 5 qu 2 q [Eq. (4.21)]
A suitable factor of safety should be used to calculate the net allowable bearing
capacity. For mats on clay, the factor of safety should not be less than 3 under dead load
or maximum live load. However, under the most extreme conditions, the factor of safety
should be at least 1.75 to 2. For mats constructed over sand, a factor of safety of 3 should
normally be used. Under most working conditions, the factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure of mats on sand is very large.
For saturated clays with 5 0 and a vertical loading condition, Eq. (4.26) gives
qu 5 cuNcFcsFcd 1 q (8.10)
8.4 Bearing Capacity of Mat Foundations 361
where cu 5 undrained cohesion. (Note: Nc 5 5.14, Nq 5 1, and N 5 0.)

From Table 4.3, for 5 0,
B Nq
1 2 1 215.14 2 5 1 1 0.195B
B 1
Fcs 5 1 1 511
L Nc L L
and
Df
Fcd 5 1 1 0.4 1B2
Substitution of the preceding shape and depth factors into Eq. (8.10) yields
Df
1 211 1 0.4 B 2 1 q
0.195B
qu 5 5.14cu 1 1 (8.11)
L
Hence, the net ultimate bearing capacity is
Df
1 211 1 0.4 B 2
0.195B
qnetsud 5 qu 2 q 5 5.14cu 1 1 (8.12)
L
For FS 5 3, the net allowable soil bearing capacity becomes
Df
1 211 1 0.4 B 2
qusnetd 0.195B
qnetsalld 5 5 1.713cu 1 1 (8.13)
FS L
The net allowable bearing capacity for mats constructed over granular soil deposits
can be adequately determined from the standard penetration resistance numbers. From
Eq. (7.39), for shallow foundations,
1 2 1 2
N60 B 1 0.3 2 Se
qnetskN/m2d 5 Fd [Eq. (7.39)]
0.08 B 25
where
N60 5 standard penetration resistance
B 5 width smd
Fd 5 1 1 0.33sDfyBd < 1.33
Se 5 settlement, smmd
When the width B is large, the preceding equation can be approximated as
1 2
N60 Se
qnetskN/m2d 5 F
0.08 d 25
Df
3 1 243 4
N60 Sesmmd
5 1 1 0.33 (8.14)
0.08 B 25
3 4
Sesmmd
< 16.63N60
25
In English units, Eq. (8.14) may be expressed as
Df
qnetsalldskip/ft2d 5 0.25N60 1 1 0.33 3 1 B 24[S sin.d] (8.15)
e
< 0.33N60[Sesin.d]
Generally, shallow foundations are designed for a maximum settlement of 25 mm

(1 in.) and a differential settlement of about 19 mm (0.75 in.).
However, the width of the raft foundations are larger than those of the isolated spread
footings. As shown in Table 6.5, the depth of significant stress increase in the soil below a
foundation depends on the width of the foundation. Hence, for a raft foundation, the depth
of the zone of influence is likely to be much larger than that of a spread footing. Thus,
the loose soil pockets under a raft may be more evenly distributed, resulting in a smaller
differential settlement. Accordingly, the customary assumption is that, for a maximum raft
settlement of 50 mm (2 in.), the differential settlement would be 19 mm (0.75 in.). Using
this logic and conservatively assuming that Fd 5 1, we can respectively approximate
Eqs. (8.14) and (8.15) as
qnetsalld 5 qnetskN/m2d < 25N60 (8.16a)
and
qnetsalld 5 qnetskip/ft2d 5 0.5N60 (8.16b)
The net pressure applied on a foundation (see Figure 8.7) may be expressed as
Q
q5 2 Df (8.17)
A
where
Q 5 dead weight of the structure and the live load
A 5 area of the raft
In all cases, q should be less than or equal to allowable qnetsalld.
8.4 Bearing Capacity of Mat Foundations 363
Unit weight 5 g
Df
Figure 8.7 Definition of net pressure on soil caused by a mat foundation
Example 8.3
Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of a mat foundation measuring 20 m 3 8 m
on a saturated clay with cu 5 85 kN/m2, 5 0, and Df 5 1.5 m.
Solution
From Eq. (8.12),
Df
qnetsud 5 5.14cu 1 1 3 10.195B
L 243
1 1 0.4 4
B
5 s5.14ds85d 1 1 3 10.195203 82431 1 10.4 38 1.524

5 506.3 kN/m2 ■
Example 8.4
What will be the net allowable bearing capacity of a mat foundation with dimensions of
45 ft 3 30 ft constructed over a sand deposit? Here, Df 5 6.5 ft, the allowable settlement
is 2 in., and the average penetration number N60 5 10.
Solution
From Eq. (8.15),
Df
qnetsalld 5 0.25 N60 1 1 0.33 3 1 B 24 S sin.d e
or
3 4
0.33 3 6.5
qnetsalld 5 s0.25ds10d 1 1 s2d 5 5.36 kip/ft2 ■
30
8.5 Differential Settlement of Mats

In 1988, the American Concrete Institute Committee 336 suggested a method for calculat-
ing the differential settlement of mat foundations. According to this method, the rigidity
factor Kr is calculated as
E9Ib
Kr 5 (8.18)
EsB3
where
E9 5 modulus of elasticity of the material used in the structure
Es 5 modulus of elasticity of the soil
B 5 width of foundation
Ib 5 moment of inertia of the structure per unit length at right angles to B
The term E9Ib can be expressed as
1 2
ah3
E9Ib 5 E9 IF 1 o I9b 1 o 12
(8.19)
where
E9Ib 5 flexural rigidity of the superstructure and foundation per unit length
at right angles to B
oE9Ib9 5 flexural rigidity of the framed members at right angles to B
osE9ah3y12d 5 flexural rigidity of the shear walls
a 5 shear wall thickness
h 5 shear wall height
E9IF 5 flexibility of the foundation
Based on the value of Kr , the ratio sd of the differential settlement to the total settlement
can be estimated in the following manner:
1. If Kr . 0.5, it can be treated as a rigid mat, and 5 0.
2. If Kr 5 0.5, then < 0.1.
3. If Kr 5 0, then 5 0.35 for square mats sByL 5 1d and 5 0.5 for long
foundations sByL 5 0d.
8.6 Field Settlement Observations for Mat Foundations

Several field settlement observations for mat foundations are currently available in the
literature. In this section, we compare the observed settlements for some mat foundations
constructed over granular soil deposits with those obtained from Eqs. (8.14) and (8.15).
Meyerhof (1965) compiled the observed maximum settlements for mat foundations
constructed on sand and gravel, as listed in Table 8.1. In Eq. (8.14), if the depth factor,
1 1 0.33sDfyBd, is assumed to be approximately unity, then
2qnetsalld
Sesmmd < (8.20)
N60
Table 8.1 Settlement of Mat Foundations on Sand and Gravel [Based on Meyerhof, G. G., (1965). “Shallow Foundations,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, pp. 21–31, Table 1.]
Observed Calculated
qnet(all) maximum maximum
Case B Average kN/m2 settlement, settlement, calculated Se
No. Structure Reference m (ft) N60 (kip/ft2) Se mm (in.) Se mm (in.) observed Se
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 T. Edison Rios and Silva (1948) 18.29 229.8 15.24 30.64

São Paulo, Brazil (60) 15 (4.8) (0.6) (1.21) 2.01
2 Banco do Brazil Rios and Silva (1948); 22.86 239.4 27.94 26.6
São Paulo, Brazil Vargas (1961) (75) 18 (5.0) (1.1) (1.05) 0.95
3 Iparanga Vargas (1948) 9.14 304.4 35.56 67.64
São Paulo, Brazil (30) 9 (6.4) (1.4) (2.66) 1.9
4 C.B.I., Esplanda Vargas (1961) 14.63 383.0 27.94 34.82
São Paulo, Brazil (48) 22 (8.0) (1.1) (1.37) 1.25
5 Riscala Vargas (1948) 3.96 229.8 12.7 22.98
São Paulo, Brazil (13) 20 (4.8) (0.5) (0.9) 1.81
6 Thyssen Schultze (1962) 22.55 239.4 24.13 19.15
Düsseldorf, Germany (74) 25 (5) (0.95) (0.75) 0.79
7 Ministry Schultze (1962) 15.85 220.2 20.32 22.02
Düsseldorf, Germany (52) 20 (4.6) (0.8) (0.87) 1.08
8 Chimney Schultze (1962) 20.42 172.4 10.16 34.48
Cologne, Germany (67) 10 (3.6) (0.4) (1.36) 3.39
8.6 Field Settlement Observations for Mat Foundations 365
From the values of qnetsalld and N60 given in Columns 6 and 5, respectively, of Table 8.1, the
magnitudes of Se were calculated and are given in Column 8.
Column 9 of Table 8.1 gives the ratios of calculated to measured values of Se . These
ratios vary from about 0.79 to 3.39. Thus, calculating the net allowable bearing capacity with
the use of Eq. (8.14) or (8.15) will yield safe and conservative values.
8.7 Compensated Foundation

Figure 8.7 and Eq. (8.17) indicate that the net pressure increase in the soil under a mat
foundation can be reduced by increasing the depth Df of the mat. This approach is gener-
ally referred to as the compensated foundation design and is extremely useful when struc-
tures are to be built on very soft clays. In this design, a deeper basement is made below the
higher portion of the superstructure, so that the net pressure increase in soil at any depth
is relatively uniform. (See Figure 8.8.) From Eq. (8.17) and Figure 8.7, the net average
applied pressure on soil is
Q
q5 2 Df
A
For no increase in the net pressure on soil below a mat foundation, q should be zero. Thus,
Q
Df 5 (8.21)
A
This relation for Df is usually referred to as the depth of a fully compensated foundation.
The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure for partially compensated foun-
dations (i.e., Df , QyA) may be given as
qnetsud qnetsud
FS 5 5 (8.22)
q Q
2 Df
A
where qnetsud 5 net ultimate bearing capacity.
Figure 8.8 Compensated

foundation
8.7 Compensated Foundation 367
For saturated clays, the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure can thus be
obtained by substituting Eq. (8.12) into Eq. (8.22):
Df
1 21 2
0.195B
5.14cu 1 1 1 1 0.4
L B
FS 5 (8.23)
Q
2 Df
A
Example 8.5
The mat shown in Figure 8.7 has dimensions of 20 m 3 30 m. The total dead and live
load on the mat is 110 MN. The mat is placed over a saturated clay having a unit weight of
18 kN/m3 and cu 5 140 kN/m2. Given that Df 5 1.5 m, determine the factor of safety
against bearing capacity failure.
Solution
From Eq. (8.23), the factor of safety
Df
1 21 2
0.195B
5.14cu 1 1 1 1 0.4
L B
FS 5
Q
2 Df
A
We are given that cu 5 140 kN/m2, Df 5 1.5 m, B 5 20 m, L 5 30 m, and 5
18 kN/m3. Hence,
3 431 1 0.411.5
20 24
s0.195ds20d
s5.14ds140d 1 1
30
FS 5 5 5.36
1 2
110,000 kN
2 s18ds1.5d
20 3 30 ■
Example 8.6
Consider a mat foundation 30 m 3 40 m in plan, as shown in Figure 8.9. The total dead
load and live load on the raft is 200 3 103 kN. Estimate the consolidation settlement at
the center of the foundation.
Solution
From Eq. (2.65)
1 2
CcHc 9o 1 D9av
Scspd 5 log
1 1 eo 9o
Q
Sand
30 m 3 40 m
2m 5 15.72 kN/m3
1.67 m z Groundwater table
13.33 m Sand
sat 5 19.1 kN/m3
Normally consolidated clay

6m sat 5 18.55 kN/m3 Figure 8.9 Consolidation
Cc 5 0.28; eo 5 0.9
settlement under a mat
Sand foundation
6
9o 5 s3.67d s15.72d 1 s13.33ds19.1 2 9.81d 1 s18.55 2 9.81d < 208 kN/m2
2
Hc 5 6 m
Cc 5 0.28
eo 5 0.9
For Q 5 200 3 103 kN, the net load per unit area is
Q 200 3 103
q5 2 Df 5 2 s15.72ds2d < 135.2 kN/m2
A 30 3 40
In order to calculate D9av we refer to Section 6.8. The loaded area can be di-
vided into four areas, each measuring 15 m 3 20 m. Now using Eq. (6.23), we can
calculate the a verage stress increase in the clay layer below the corner of each rec-
tangular area, or
H2IasH2d 2 H1IasH1d
D9avsH2yH1d 5 qo 3 H2 2 H1 4
s1.67 1 13.33 1 6dIasH2d 2 s1.67 1 13.33dIasH1d
5 135.2 3 6 4
For IasH2d,
B 15
m2 5 5 5 0.71
H2 1.67 1 13.33 1 6
L 20
n2 5 5 5 0.95
H2 21
8.8 Structural Design of Mat Foundations 369
From Fig. 6.11, for m2 5 0.71 and n2 5 0.95, the value of IasH2d is 0.21. Again, for IasH1d,
B 15
m2 5 5 51
H1 15
L 20
n2 5 5 5 1.33
H1 15
From Figure 6.11, IasH1d 5 0.225, so
3 4
s21ds0.21d 2 s15ds0.225d
D9avsH2/H1d 5 135.2 5 23.32 kN/m2
6
So, the stress increase below the center of the 30 m 3 40 m area is s4d s23.32d 5
93.28 kN/m2. Thus
1 2
s0.28ds6dd 208 1 93.28
Scspd 5 log 5 0.142 m
1 1 0.9 208
5 142 mm ■
8.8 Structural Design of Mat Foundations

The structural design of mat foundations can be carried out by two conventional methods:
the conventional rigid method and the approximate flexible method. Finite-difference
and finite-element methods can also be used, but this section covers only the basic con-
cepts of the first two design methods.
Conventional Rigid Method

The conventional rigid method of mat foundation design can be explained step by step
with reference to Figure 8.10:
Step 1. Figure 8.10a shows mat dimensions of L 3 B and column loads of Q1 , Q2 ,
Q3 , Á . Calculate the total column load as
Q 5 Q1 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 Á (8.24)
Step 2. Determine the pressure on the soil, q, below the mat at points A, B, C, D, Á ,
by using the equation
Q Myx Mxy
q5 6 6 (8.25)
A Iy Ix
where
A 5 BL
3
Ix 5 s1y12dBL 5 moment of inertia about the x-axis
3
Iy 5 s1y12dLB 5 moment of inertia about the y-axis
Mx 5 moment of the column loads about the x { axis 5 Qey
My 5 moment of the column loads about the y { axis 5 Qex
y9 y
B1 B1 B1 B1
A D
B C
Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
B1
ex
ey B1
E
L J x
Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8
B1
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
x9
I H G F
B
(a)
FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4
I H G F
B1 ? qav(modified)
unit length
B
(b)
Edge
of mat
L9 L9
d/2 d/2
d/2
d/2 L9
L0 d/2 d/2
Edge of d/2 L0
Edge of d/2 mat
mat L0 d/2
b o 5 2L9 1 L0 b o 5 L9 1 L0
b o 5 2(L9 1 L0)
(c)
Figure 8.10 Conventional rigid mat foundation design
The load eccentricities, ex and ey , in the x and y directions can be

determined by using sx9, y9d coordinates:
Q1x91 1 Q2x92 1 Q3x93 1 Á

x9 5 (8.26)
Q
and
B
ex 5 x9 2 (8.27)
2
Similarly,
Q1y91 1 Q2y92 1 Q3y93 1 Á
y9 5 (8.28)
Q
and
L
ey 5 y9 2 (8.29)
2
Step 3. Compare the values of the soil pressures determined in Step 2 with the net
allowable soil pressure to determine whether q < qallsnetd .
Step 4. Divide the mat into several strips in the x and y directions. (See
Figure 8.10). Let the width of any strip be B1 .
Step 5. Draw the shear, V, and the moment, M, diagrams for each individual strip
(in the x and y directions). For example, the average soil pressure of the
bottom strip in the x direction of Figure 8.10a is
qI 1 qF
qav < (8.30)
2
where qI and qF 5 soil pressures at points I and F, as determined from Step 2.
The total soil reaction is equal to qavB1B. Now obtain the total column
load on the strip as Q1 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 Q4 . The sum of the column loads on
the strip will not equal qavB1B, because the shear between the adjacent strips
has not been taken into account. For this reason, the soil reaction and the
column loads need to be adjusted, or
qavB1B 1 sQ1 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 Q4d

Average load 5 (8.31)
2
Now, the modified average soil reaction becomes
1 2
average load
qavsmodifiedd 5 qav (8.32)
qavB1B
and the column load modification factor is

average load
F5 (8.33)
Q1 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 Q4
So the modified column loads are FQ1 , FQ2 , FQ3 , and FQ4 . This
modified loading on the strip under consideration is shown in Figure 8.10b.
The shear and the moment diagram for this strip can now be drawn, and the
procedure is repeated in the x and y directions for all strips.
Step 6. Determine the effective depth d of the mat by checking for diagonal
tension shear near various columns. For the critical section,
Vc $ U (8.34)
where
U 5 factored column load according to ACI Code 318-11 (2011)
Vc 5 shear capacity at the column location
According to ACI Code 318-11 (Section 11.11.2.1) for non-
prestressed slabs and footings, Vc shall be the smallest of (8.35a), (8.35b),
and (8.35c). In US customary units, the equations are
1 2
4
Vc 5 2 1 Ïfc9 b0 d (8.35a)

1 2
sd
Vc 5 2 1 Ïfc9 b0 d (8.35b)
b0
Vc 5 4Ïfc9 b0 d (8.35c)
where

5 ratio of long side to short side of the column
s 5 40 for interior columns
5 30 for edge columns
5 20 for corner columns
b0 5 perimeter of the critical section for shear
fc9 5 compressive strength of concrete at 28 days (psi)
5 modification factor reflecting the reduced mechanical properties of
lightweight concrete, all relative to normal weight concrete of the
same compressive strength
d 5 effective depth of the mat
The expression for b0 in terms of d, which depends on the location of
the column with respect to the plan of the mat, can be obtained from
Figure 8.10c.
In SI units, the equations for Vc are
1 2 1 2
Vc 5 1 1 Ïfc9 b0 d(8.35d)
6
V 5 12 1
b 2
1 d s
c Ïf 9 b d(8.35e) c 0
12 0
1
Vc 5 Ïfc9 b0 d(8.35f)
3
Step 7. From the moment diagrams of all strips in one direction (x or y),
obtain the maximum positive and negative moments per unit width (i.e.,
Mu 5 M/B1). Since factored column loads are used in accordance with
ACI Code 318-11 (see Step 6), Mu is the factored moment.
Step 8. Determine the area of steel per unit width for positive and negative rein-
forcement in the x and y directions. We have
1 2
a
Mu 5 As fy d 2 (8.36)
2
and
As fy
a5 (8.37)
0.85fc9b
where
As 5 area of steel per unit width

fy 5 yield stress of reinforcement in tension
Mu 5 factored moment
5 0.9 5 reduction factor
Examples 8.7 and 8.8 illustrate the use of the conventional rigid method of mat foundation
design.
Approximate Flexible Method

In the conventional rigid method of design, the mat is assumed to be infinitely rigid.
Also, the soil pressure is distributed in a straight line, and the centroid of the soil pressure
is coincident with the line of action of the resultant column loads. (See Figure 8.11a.)
In the approximate flexible method of design, the soil is assumed to be equivalent to an
infinite number of elastic springs, as shown in Figure 8.11b. This assumption is sometimes
referred to as the Winkler foundation. The elastic constant of these assumed springs is
referred to as the coefficient of subgrade reaction, k.
To understand the fundamental concepts behind flexible foundation design, consider
a beam of width B1 having infinite length, as shown in Figure 8.11c. The beam is subjected
to a single concentrated load Q. From the fundamentals of mechanics of materials,
d2z
M 5 EFIF (8.38)
dx2
where
M 5 moment at any section
EF 5 modulus of elasticity of foundation material
IF 5 moment of inertia of the cross section of the beam 5 _12
1
+ B1h3 (see Figure 8.11c).
However,
dM
5 shear force 5 V
dx
SQ
Q1 Q2 Q3
Resultant of
soil pressure
(a) Q2
Q1
(b)
Point load
A
B1
h x
Section q
at A 2 A A
z (c)
Figure 8.11 (a) Principles of design by conventional rigid method; (b) principles of approximate
flexible method; (c) derivation of Eq. (8.42) for beams on elastic foundation
and
dV
5 q 5 soil reaction
dx
Hence,
d2M
5 q (8.39)
dx2
Combining Eqs. (8.38) and (8.39) yields
d 4z
EF IF 5 q (8.40)
dx4
However, the soil reaction is

q 5 2zk9
where
z 5 deflection
k9 5 kB1
k 5 coefficient of subgrade reaction skN/m3 or lb/in3d
So,
d 4z
EF IF 5 2z kB1 (8.41)
dx 4
Solving Eq. (8.41) yields
z 5 e2xsA9 cos x 1 A0 sin xd (8.42)
where A9 and A0 are constants and
5 Î 4
B1k
4EFIF
(8.43)
The unit of the term , as defined by the preceding equation, is slengthd21.

This parameter is very important in determining whether a mat foundation should
be designed by the conventional rigid method or the approximate flexible method.
According to the American Concrete Institute Committee 336 (1988), mats should be
designed by the conventional rigid method if the spacing of columns in a strip is less
than 1.75y. If the spacing of columns is larger than 1.75y, the approximate flexible
method may be used.
To perform the analysis for the structural design of a flexible mat, one must know
the principles involved in evaluating the coefficient of subgrade reaction, k. Before pro-
ceeding with the discussion of the approximate flexible design method, let us discuss this
coefficient in more detail.
If a foundation of width B (see Figure 8.12) is subjected to a load per unit area of q, it
will undergo a settlement D. The coefficient of subgrade reaction can be defined as
q
k5 (8.44)
D
D Figure 8.12 Definition of

coefficient of subgrade reaction, k
The unit of k is kN/m3 sor lb/in3d. The value of the coefficient of subgrade reaction is
not a constant for a given soil, but rather depends on several factors, such as the length
L and width B of the foundation and also the depth of embedment of the foundation. A
comprehensive study by Terzaghi (1955) of the parameters affecting the coefficient of
subgrade reaction indicated that the value of the coefficient decreases with the width of the
foundation. In the field, load tests can be carried out by means of square plates measuring
0.3 m 3 0.3 m s1 ft 3 1 ftd, and values of k can be calculated. The value of k can be related
to large foundations measuring B 3 B in the following ways:
Foundations on Sandy Soils

For foundations on sandy soils,
1 2
2
B 1 0.3
k 5 k0.3 (8.45)
2B
where k 0.3 and k 5 coefficients of subgrade reaction of foundations measuring 0.3 m 3 0.3 m
and B smd 3 B smd, respectively (unit is kN/m3).
In English units, Eq. (8.45) may be expressed as
1 2
2
B11
k 5 k1 (8.46)
2B
where k1 and k 5 coefficients of subgrade reaction of foundations measuring 1 ft 3 1 ft

and B sftd 3 B sftd, respectively (unit is lb/in3).
Foundations on Clays
For foundations on clays,
3 B smd 4
0.3 smd
kskN/m3d 5 k0.3 skN/m3d (8.47a)
The definitions of k and k0.3 in Eq. (8.47a) are the same as in Eq. (8.45).
In English units,
3B sftd4
1 sftd
kslb/in3d 5 k1 slb/in3d (8.47b)
The definitions of k and k1 are the same as in Eq. (8.46).

For rectangular foundations having dimensions of B 3 L (for similar soil and q),
1 2
B
ksB3Bd 1 1 0.5
L
k5 (8.48)
1.5
where
k 5 coefficient of subgrade reaction of the rectangular foundation sL 3 Bd
ksB3Bd 5 coefficient
of subgrade reaction of a square foundation having dimension
of B 3 B
Equation (8.48) indicates that the value of k for a very long foundation with a width B is
approximately 0.67ksB3Bd.
The modulus of elasticity of granular soils increases with depth. Because the settle-
ment of a foundation depends on the modulus of elasticity, the value of k increases with
the depth of the foundation.
Table 8.2 provides typical ranges of values for the coefficient of subgrade reaction,
k0.3 sk1 d, for sandy and clayey soils.
For long beams, Vesic (1961) proposed an equation for estimating subgrade reaction,
namely,
k9 5 Bk 5 0.65 Î 12
EsB4 Es
EFIF 1 2 2s
Table 8.2 Typical Subgrade Reaction Values, k0.3sk1d

k0.3(k1)
3
Soil type MN/m lb/in.3
Dry or moist sand:

Loose 8–25 30–90
Medium 25–125 90–450
Dense 125–375 450–1350
Saturated sand:
Loose 10–15 35–55
Medium 35–40 125–145
Dense 130–150 475–550
Clay:
Stiff 10–25 40–90
Very stiff 25–50 90–185
Hard .50 .185
or
k 5 0.65 Î 12
Es B4 Es
EF IF Bs1 2 2s d
(8.49)
where
Es 5 modulus of elasticity of soil
B 5 foundation width
IF 5 moment of inertia of the cross section of the foundation
s 5 Poisson’s ratio of soil
For most practical purposes, Eq. (8.49) can be approximated as
Es
k5 (8.50)
Bs1 2 2s d
Now that we have discussed the coefficient of subgrade reaction, we will proceed
with the discussion of the approximate flexible method of designing mat foundations.
This method, as proposed by the American Concrete Institute Committee 336 (1988), is
described step by step. The use of the design procedure, which is based primarily on the
theory of plates, allows the effects (i.e., moment, shear, and deflection) of a concentrated
column load in the area surrounding it to be evaluated. If the zones of influence of two or
more columns overlap, superposition can be employed to obtain the net moment, shear,
and deflection at any point. The method is as follows:
Step 1. Assume a thickness h for the mat, according to Step 6 of the conventional
rigid method. (Note: h is the total thickness of the mat.)
Step 2. Determine the flexural ridigity R of the mat as given by the formula
EFh3
R5 (8.51)
12s1 2 2Fd
where

F 5 Poisson’s ratio of foundation material
Step 3. Determine the radius of effective stiffness—that is,
L9 5 Î 4
R
k
(8.52)
where k 5 coefficient of subgrade reaction. The zone of influence of any

column load will be on the order of 3 to 4 L9.
Step 4. Determine the moment (in polar coordinates at a point) caused by a column
load (see Figure 8.13a). The formulas to use are
3 4
Q s1 2 Fd A2
Mr 5 radial moment 5 2 A1 2 (8.53)
4 r
L9
and
3 4
Q s1 2 Fd A2
Mt 5 tangential moment 5 2 FA1 1 (8.54)
4 r
L9
where
r 5 radial distance from the column load
Q 5 column load
A1 , A2 5 functions of r/L9
The variations of A1 and A2 with r/L9 are shown in Figure 8.13b. (For details
see Hetenyi, 1946.)
In the Cartesian coordinate system (see Figure 8.13a),
Mx 5 Mt sin2 1 Mr cos2 (8.55)
and
My 5 Mt cos2 1 Mr sin2 (8.56)
5
y
My
Mr
Mt 4
Mx r
r 3
L9
x A2
A4
2
A1
(a) A3
1
0
–0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
A1, A2, A3, A4
(b)
Figure 8.13 Approximate flexible method of mat design
Step 5. For the unit width of the mat, determine the shear force V caused by a
column load:
Q
V5 A (8.57)
4L9 3
The variation of A3 with r/L9 is shown in Figure 8.13b.
Step 6. If the edge of the mat is located in the zone of influence of a column, deter-
mine the moment and shear along the edge. (Assume that the mat is continu-
ous.) Moment and shear opposite in sign to those determined are applied at
the edges to satisfy the known conditions.
Step 7. The deflection at any point is given by
QL92
5 A (8.58)
4R 4
The variation of A4 is presented in Figure 8.13b.
Example 8.7
The plan of a mat foundation is shown in Figure 8.14. Calculate the soil pressure at
points A, B, C, D, E, and F. (Note: All column sections are planned to be 0.5 m 3 0.5 m.)
All loads shown are factored loads according to ACI 381-11 (2011).
Solution
Q My x Mx y
Eq. (8.25): q 5 6 6
A Iy Ix
A 5 (20.5)(27.5) 5 563.75 m2
1 1
Ix 5 BL3 5 s20.5ds27.5d3 5 35,528 m4
12 12
1 1
Iy 5 LB3 5 s27.5ds20.5d3 5 19,743 m4
12 12
Q 5 470 1 (2)(550) 1 600 1 (2)(660) 1 (2)(1600) 1 (4)(2000) 5 14,690 kN
B
My 5 Qex; ex 5 x9 2
2
Q1x91 1 Q2x92 1 Q3x93 1 Á
x9 5
Q
3 4
s10.25ds660 1 2000 1 2000 1 660d
1
5 1 s20.25ds470 1 1600 1 1600 1 600d 5 9.686 m
14,690
1 s0.25ds550 1 2000 1 2000 1 550d
B
ex 5 x9 2 5 9.686 2 10.25 5 20.565 m < 20.57 m
2
y9 y
A G B I C
0.25 m
550 kN 660 kN 600 kN
9m
2000 kN 2000 kN 1600 kN

5.25 m 10 m 5.25 m
9m
x
2000 kN 2000 kN 1600 kN
9m
550 kN 660 kN 470 kN

0.25 m x9
F H E J D
10 m 10 m
0.25 m 0.25 m
Figure 8.14 Plan of a mat foundation
Hence, the resultant line of action is located to the left of the center of the mat. So
My 5 (14,690)(0.57) 5 8373 kN-m. Similarly
L
Mx 5 Qey; ey 5 y9 2
2
Q1y91 1 Q2y92 1 Q3y93 1 Á
y9 5
Q
3 4
1 s0.25ds550 1 660 1 470d 1 s9.25ds2000 1 2000 1 1600d
5
14,690 1s18.25ds2000 1 2000 1 1600d 1 s27.25ds550 1 660 1 600d
5 13.86 m
L
ey 5 y9 2 5 13.86 2 13.75 5 0.11 m
2
y9 y
A G B I C
0.25 m
550 kN 660 kN 600 kN
9m
2000 kN 2000 kN 1600 kN

5.25 m 10 m 5.25
0.57 m m
9m
0.11 m
x
2000 kN 2000 kN 1600 kN
9m
550 kN 660 kN 470 kN

0.25 m x9
F H E J D
10 m 10 m
0.25 m 0.25 m Figure 8.15
The location of the line of action of the resultant column loads is shown in Figure 8.15.
Mx 5 (14,690)(0.11) 5 1616 kN-m. So
14,690 8373x 1616y
q5 6 6 5 26.0 6 0.42x 6 0.05y skN/m2d
563.75 19743 35,528
Therefore,
At A: q 5 26 1 (0.42) (10.25) 1 (0.05) (13.75) 5 31.0 kN/m2
At B: q 5 26 1 (0.42) (0) 1 (0.05) (13.75) 5 26.68 kN/m2
At C: q 5 26 2 (0.42) (10.25) 1 (0.05) (13.75) 5 22.38 kN/m2
At D: q 5 26 2 (0.42) (10.25) 2 (0.05) (13.75) 5 21.0 kN/m2
At E: q 5 26 1 (0.42) (0) 2 (0.05) (13.75) 5 25.31 kN/m2
At F: q 5 26 1 (0.42) (10.25) 2 (0.05) (13.75) 5 29.61 kN/m2 ■
Example 8.8
Divide the mat shown in Figure 8.14 into three strips, such as AGHF (B1 5 5.25 m),
GIJH (B1 5 10 m), and ICDJ sB1 5 5.25 md. Use the result of Example 8.7, and
determine the reinforcement requirements in the y direction. Here, fc9 5 20.7 MN/m2,
fy 5 413.7 MN/m2. Note: All column loads are factored loads.
Solution
Determination of Shear and Moment Diagrams for Strips:
Strip AGHF:
31 1 29.61
Average soil pressure 5 qav 5 qsat Ad 1 qsat Fd 5 5 30.305 kN/m2
2
Total soil reaction 5 qav B1L 5 (30.305) (5.25) (27.5) 5 4375 kN
load due to soil reaction 1 column loads

Average load 5
2

4375 1 5100
5 5 4737.5 kN
2
So, modified average soil pressure,
14737.5 2 5 s30.305d1
4375 2
4737.5 2
qavsmodifiedd 5 qav 5 32.81 kN/m
4375
The column loads can be modified in a similar manner by multiplying factor

4737.5
F5 5 0.929
5100
Figure 8.16 shows the loading on the strip and corresponding shear and moment
diagrams. Note that the column loads shown in this figure have been multiplied by
511 kN 1858 kN 1858 kN 511 kN

0.25 m 0.25 m
A F
172.25 kN/m
1082.31 775.69 467.94
43.06
Shear (kN)
43.06
467.94
775.69
1082.31
2770.53 2770.53 ≈ 2771
5.38 5.38
1025.22
Moment (kN-m) Figure 8.16 Load, shear,
and moment diagrams for
630.08 630.08 strip AGHF
F 5 0.929. Also the load per unit length of the beam is equal to B1qav(modified) 5
(5.25)(32.81) 5 172.25 kN/m.
Strip GIJH: In a similar manner,
qsat Bd 1 qsat Ed 26.68 1 25.31

qav 5 5 5 26.0 kN/m2
2 2
Total soil reaction 5 (26)(10)(27.5) 5 7150 kN
Total column load 5 5320 kN
7150 1 5320
Average load 5 5 6235 kN
2
qavsmodifiedd 5 s26d 16235

7150 2
5 22.67 kN/m 2
6235
F5 5 1.17
5320
The load, shear, and moment diagrams are shown in Figure 8.17.
Strip ICDJ: Figure 8.18 shows the load, shear, and moment diagrams for this strip.
772 kN 2340 kN 2340 kN 772 kN

0.25 m 0.25 m
B E
226.7 kN/m
1325 1015 715.33
56.67
Shear (kN)
56.67
715.33
1015 990.17
2756 2756
472.3
7.08 7.08
Moment (kN-m)
1119.56 1119.56
Figure 8.17 Load, shear, and moment diagrams for strip GIJH
519.6 kN 1385.6 kN 1385.6 kN 407 kN

0.25 m 0.25 m
C D
134.55 kN/m
725 550.35
375.7
33.63
Shear (kN)
31.3
485.96
660.6
835.25
1080.91
586.06
4.2
Moment (kN-m)
539.4 **See note below
872.95 2003.2 ≈ 2003
Figure 8.18 Load, shear, and moment diagrams for strip ICDJ
**Note: In view of the assumption of uniform soil reaction to non-symmetric loading, there is a discrepancy
in the moment values at the right column. As a result, the moment diagram will not “close”. This is ignored
since it is not the governing design moment
Determination of the Thickness of the Mat

For this problem, the critical section for diagonal tension shear will be at the
column carrying 2000 kN of load at the edge of the mat [Figure 8.19]. So
U 5 2000 kN 5 2 MN
1 2 1 2
d d
b0 5 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 s0.5 1 dd 5 1.5 1 2d
2 2
Equations (8.34), (8.35d), (8.35e), and (8.35f) are used to calculate the effective
depth, d, given that: fc9 5 20.7 MN/m2; 5 1 snormal weight concreted; 5 1 (square
columns); and s 5 30 sedge columnd. Note that the maximum value of d is selected
as the design value and it corresponds to the minimum value of Vc obtained from
equations (8.35d), (8.35e), and (8.35f).
1 2
1 2
Vc 5 11 Ïfc9 b0 d(8.35d)
6
2000 kN
Column load
Edge
of mat
0.5 1 d
0.5 1 d
2 Figure 8.19 Critical perimeter column
1 2
1 2
25 1 1 s1dÏ20.7s1.5 1 2ddsdd
6 1

2d 2 1 1.5d 2 0.8793 5 0
So, d 5 0.387 m.
1 2
1 sd
Vc 5 21 Ïfc9 b0 d(8.35e)
12 b0
1 2
1 s30dsdd
25 21 s1dÏ20.7s1.5 1 2ddsdd
12 1.5 1 2sdd

34d 2 1 3d 2 5.275 5 0
So, d 5 0.352 m.
1
Vc 5 Ïfc9 b0 d(8.35f)
3
1
2 5 s1dÏ20.7s1.5 1 2ddsdd
3

2d 2 1 1.5d 2 1.318 5 0
So, d 5 0.519 m.
Therefore, the design mat thickness, d 5 0.519 m (ø 20.5 in.)
Assuming a minimum cover of 76 mm over the steel reinforcement and also assuming
that the steel bars to be used are 25 mm in diameter, the total thickness of the slab is
h 5 0.52 1 0.076 1 0.0125 5 0.609 m ø 0.61 m
The thickness of this mat will satisfy the wide beam shear condition across the three
strips under consideration.
Determination of Reinforcement
From the moment diagram shown in Figures 8.16, 8.17, and 8.18, it can be seen that the
maximum positive moment is located in strip AGHF, and its magnitude is
2771 2771
Mu 5 5 5 527.8 kN { m/m
B1 5.25
Similarly, the maximum negative moment is located in strip ICDJ and its magnitude is
2003 2003
Mu 5 5 5 381.52 kN { m/m
B1 5.25
1 2
a
From Eq. (8.36), Mu 5 As fy d 2 .
2
For the positive moment,
Mu 5 527.8 5 sdsAsd (413.7 3 1000) 0.61 2 1 a

2 2
5 0.9. Also, from Eq. (8.37),
As fy
sAsds413.7d
a5 55 23.51As; or As 5 0.0425a
s0.85ds20.7ds1d
0.85fc9b

1 2
a
527.8 5 s0.9d s0.0425ads413,700d 0.61 2 ; or a < 0.0573 m
2
So, As 5 s0.0425ds0.0573d 5 0.002435 m2/m 5 2435 mm2/m.
Use 25-mm diameter bars at 200 mm center-to-center:
3A provided 5 s491d11000
s
200 2
5 2455 mm /m4 2
Similarly, for negative reinforcement,
1 2
a
Mu 5 381.52 5 sdsAsd s413.7 3 1000d 0.61 2
2

5 0.9, As 5 0.0425a
So
1 2
a
381.52 5 (0.9) (0.0425a) (413.7 3 1000) 0.61 2 ; or a ø 0.0409 m
2
So, As 5 (0.0409) (0.0425) 5 0.001738 m2/m 5 1738 mm2/m.
Top steel Bottom steel Top steel
Additional top steel

in strip ICDJ
Figure 8.20 General arrangement of reinforcement
Use 25-mm diameter bars at 255 mm center-to-center:
[As provided 5 1925 mm2]
Because negative moment occurs at midbay of strip ICDJ, reinforcement should be

provided. This moment is
539.4
Mu 5 5 102.74 kN { m/m
5.25
Hence,
1 2
a
Mu 5 102.74 5 s0.9ds0.0425ads413.7 3 1000d 0.61 2 ;
2
or a ø 0.0107 m, and
As 5 (0.0107) (0.0425) 5 0.0004547 m2/m 5 455 mm2/m
Provide 16-mm diameter bars at 400 mm center-to-center:
[As provided 5 502 mm2 ]
For general arrangement of the reinforcement, see Figure 8.20. ■
Problems
8.1 Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of mat foundations with the following
characteristics:
cu 5 2500 lb/ft2, 5 0, B 5 20 ft, L 5 30 ft, Df 5 6.2 ft
Problems 389
8.2 Following are the results of a standard penetration test in the field (sandy soil):
Depth (m) Field value of N60

1.5 9
3.0 12
4.5 11
6.0 7
7.5 13
9.0 11
10.5 13
Estimate the net allowable bearing capacity of a mat foundation 6.5 m 3 5 m in plan.
Here, Df 5 1.5 m and allowable settlement 5 50 mm. Assume that the unit weight of
soil, 5 16.5 kN/m3.
8.3 Repeat Problem 8.2 for an allowable settlement of 25 mm.
8.4 A mat foundation on a saturated clay soil has dimensions of 15 m 3 20 m. Given:
dead and live load 5 48 MN, cu 5 50 kN/m2, and clay 5 17.6 kN/m3.
a. Find the depth, Df , of the mat for a fully compensated foundation.
b. What will be the depth of the mat sDfd for a factor of safety of 2 against bearing
capacity failure?
8.5 Repeat Problem 8.4 part b for cu 5 40 kN/m2.
8.6 A mat foundation is shown in Figure P8.6. The design considerations are
L 5 12 m, B 5 10 m, Df 5 2.2 m, Q 5 30 MN, x1 5 2 m, x2 5 2 m, x3 5 5.2 m,
and preconsolidation pressure 9c < 105 kN/m 2. Calculate the consolidation settle-
ment under the center of the mat.
Size of mat 5 B 3 L
Sand
Df
5 16.0 kN/m3
Q
x1 Groundwater
z table
x2 Sand
sat 5 18.0 kN/m3
Clay
x3 sat 5 17.5 kN/m3
eo 5 0.88
Cc 5 0.38
Cs 5 0.1
Figure P8.6
8.7 For the mat foundation in Problem 8.6, estimate the consolidation settlement under
the corner of the mat.
8.8 From the plate load test (plate dimensions 1 ft 3 1 ft) in the field, the coefficient
of subgrade reaction of a sandy soil is determined to be 60 lb/in3. What will be the
value of the coefficient of subgrade reaction on the same soil for a foundation with
dimensions of 20 ft 3 20 ft?
8.9 Refer to Problem 8.8. If the full-sized foundation had dimensions of 70 ft 3 30 ft,
what will be the value of the coefficient of subgrade reaction?
8.10 The subgrade reaction of a sandy soil obtained from the plate load test (plate
dimensions 1 m 3 0.7 m) is 18 MN/m3. What will be the value of k on the same soil
for a foundation measuring 5 m 3 3.5 m?
References
American Concrete Institute (2011). ACI Standard Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete, ACI 318 –11, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute Committee 336 (1988). “Suggested Design Procedures for
Combined Footings and Mats,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 63, No. 10,
pp. 104 1–1077.
Hetenyi, M. (1946). Beams of Elastic Foundations, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1965). “Shallow Foundations,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. SM2, pp. 21–31.
Rios, L. and Silva, F. P. (1948). “Foundations in Downtown São Paulo (Brazil),” Proceedings,
Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam,
Vol. 4, p. 69.
Schultze, E. (1962). “Probleme bei der Auswertung von Setzungsmessungen,” Proceedings,
Baugrundtagung, Essen, Germany, p. 343.
Terzaghi, K. (1955). “Evaluation of the Coefficient of Subgrade Reactions,” Geotechnique,
Institute of Engineers, London, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 197–226.
Vargas, M. (1948). “Building Settlement Observations in São Paulo,” Proceedings Second
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam,
Vol. 4, p. 13.
Vargas, M. (1961). “Foundations of Tall Buildings on Sand in São Paulo (Brazil),” Proceedings,
Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris,
Vol. 1, p. 841.
Vesic, A. S. (1961). “Bending of Beams Resting on Isotropic Solid,” Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 87, No. EM2, pp. 35–53.

Mat Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mat Foundation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mat Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Mat Foundations

8.2 Combined Footings

B ? qnet(all) /unit length

Figure 8.1 Rectangular combined footing

Trapezoidal Combined Footing

B2 ? qnet(all) /unit length

B1 ? qnet(all) /unit length

Figure 8.2 Trapezoidal combined footing

From Figure 8.2,

b. Determine the location of the resultant for the column loads:

c. From the property of a trapezoid,

Strap Plan Strap Plan

Figure 8.3 Cantilever footing—use of strap beam

From Eq. (8.7),

Again, from Eq. (8.9),

From Eqs. (a) and (b), we have

8.3 Common Types of Mat Foundations

Section Section Section

Plan Plan Plan

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8.4 Common types of mat foundations

8.4 Bearing Capacity of Mat Foundations

where cu 5 undrained cohesion. (Note: Nc 5 5.14, Nq 5 1, and N 5 0.)

Hence, the net ultimate bearing capacity is

For FS 5 3, the net allowable soil bearing capacity becomes

When the width B is large, the preceding equation can be approximated as

In English units, Eq. (8.14) may be expressed as

Generally, shallow foundations are designed for a maximum settlement of 25 mm

qnetsalld 5 qnetskN/m2d < 25N60 (8.16a)

qnetsalld 5 qnetskip/ft2d 5 0.5N60 (8.16b)

Figure 8.7 Definition of net pressure on soil caused by a mat foundation

5 s5.14ds85d 1 1 3 10.195203 82431 1 10.4 38 1.524

8.5 Differential Settlement of Mats

8.6 Field Settlement Observations for Mat Foundations

1 T. Edison Rios and Silva (1948) 18.29 229.8 15.24 30.64

8.7 Compensated Foundation

where qnetsud 5 net ultimate bearing capacity.

Figure 8.8 Compensated

Normally consolidated clay

From Figure 6.11, IasH1d 5 0.225, so

8.8 Structural Design of Mat Foundations

Conventional Rigid Method

FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4

Figure 8.10 Conventional rigid mat foundation design

The load eccentricities, ex and ey , in the x and y directions can be

Q1x91 1 Q2x92 1 Q3x93 1 Á

qavB1B 1 sQ1 1 Q2 1 Q3 1 Q4d

and the column load modification factor is

As 5 area of steel per unit width

Approximate Flexible Method

However, the soil reaction is

z 5 e2xsA9 cos x 1 A0 sin xd (8.42)

where A9 and A0 are constants and

The unit of the term , as defined by the preceding equation, is slengthd21.

D Figure 8.12 Definition of

Foundations on Sandy Soils

where k1 and k 5 coefficients of subgrade reaction of foundations measuring 1 ft 3 1 ft

The definitions of k and k1 are the same as in Eq. (8.46).

Table 8.2 Typical Subgrade Reaction Values, k0.3sk1d

Dry or moist sand:

where cu 5 undrained cohesion. (Note: Nc 5 5.14, Nq 5 1, and N 5 0.)

z 5 e2xsA9 cos x 1 A0 sin xd (8.42)

The unit of the term , as defined by the preceding equation, is slengthd21.

Mu 5 527.8 5 sdsAsd (413.7 3 1000) 0.61 2 1 a

For general arrangement of the reinforcement, see Figure 8.20. ■

cu 5 2500 lb/ft2, 5 0, B 5 20 ft, L 5 30 ft, Df 5 6.2 ft