Mat Foundations

Common types of mat foundation

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 soil that have low load-
bearing capacities, but 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 10.4 and include the following
1. Flat plate (Figure 10.4a). The mat is of uniform
thickness.
2. Flat plate thickened under columns (Figure 10.4b).
3. Beams and slab (Figure 10.4c). The beams run both
ways, and the columns are located at the intersections of
the beams.
4. Flat plates with pedestals (Figure 10.4d).
5. Slab with basement walls as a part of the mat (Figure
10.4e). The walls act as stiffeners for the mat.
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 10.5 shows the
difference between the depth Df and the width B of
isolated foundations and mat foundations. Figure 10.6
shows a flat-plate mat foundation under construction.
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 (from
previously), or

(The previous equations gives the proper values of

the bearing capacity factors, as well as the shape,
depth, and load inclination factors.) The term B in
Eq. (6.28) is the smallest dimension of the mat. The
net ultimate capacity of a mat foundation is
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. Here settlement
considerations dominate in the design.
For saturated clays with  = 0 (Note: Nc = 5.14, Nq = 1,
and N = 0) and a vertical loading condition, Eq. (6.28)
gives

where cu = undrained cohesion.

From previous Tables (5) , for  = 0 ,

And
Substitution of the preceding shape and depth factors
into Eq. (10.10) yields;

Hence, the net ultimate bearing capacity is

For FS = 3, the net allowable soil bearing capacity

becomes
For mats in sands, since the factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure is very large, the designs are
governed by settlement considerations. From Eq. (9.51)
given below, with N60 and substituting the allowable
settlement for Se, the net allowable bearing pressure can
be determined by

where
N60 = standard penetration resistance
B = width (m)
Fd = 1 + 0.33(Df/B) ≤ 1.33
Se is settlement (mm)
When the width B is large, assuming Df/B=1, the
preceding equation can be approximated as

In English units, assuming Df/B=1, Eq. (10.14) may be

expressed as
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) suggested limiting the total
settlement of pad and strip foundations to 25 mm (1 in.),
which would limit the differential settlement to 19 mm
(0.75 in.). However, the width of the raft foundations are
larger than those of the isolated spread footings. As
shown in Figures 8.10 and 8.11, 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 with further stiffening of the soil taking
place, resulting in a smaller differential settlement. Based
on this concept, Terzaghi and Peck (1948) suggested
allowing for a maximum raft settlement of 50 mm (2 in.),
which would still limit the differential settlement to 19 mm
(0.75 in.). Nowadays, even higher values are allowed for
the limiting settlements (see Section 9.16). Using this logic
and conservatively assuming that Fd=1, we can
respectively approximate Eqs. (10.14) and (10.15) as
And

The net pressure applied on a foundation (see Figure 10.7

may be expressed as,

where
Q is dead weight of the structure and the live load
A is area of the raft
In all cases, q should be less than or equal to allowable q
all (net) .
Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of a mat
foundation measuring 20 m x 8 m on a saturated clay with
cu = 85 kN/m2,  = 0, and Df = 1.5 m.
Solution
From Eq. (10.12),
Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of a mat
foundation measuring 15 m x 8 m on a saturated clay with
cu = 81 kN/m2,  = 0, and Df = 1.8 m.
Solution
From Eq. (10.12),
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=6.5 ft, the allowable
settlement is 2 in., and the average penetration number
N60 = 10.
Differential Settlement of Mats
In 1988, the American Concrete Institute Committee
336 suggested a method for calculating the
differential settlement of mat foundations.
According to this method, the rigidity factor Kr is
calculated as

where
E’ is modulus of elasticity of the material used in the structure
Es i modulus of elasticity of the soil
B is width of foundation
Ib is moment of inertia of the structure per unit length at
right angles to B. The term E’Ib can be expressed as

where
E’Ib is flexural rigidity of the superstructure and foundation
per unit length at right angles to B
𝛴E’Ibis flexural rigidity of the framed members at right
angles to B
𝑎ℎ3
𝛴 is flexural rigidity of the shear walls
12
a is shear wall thickness
h is shear wall height
E’IF is flexibility of the foundation
Based on the value of Kr , the ratio (𝛿) 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  = 0.
2. If Kr = 0.5, then  ≈ 0.1.
3. If Kr = 0, then  = 0.35 for square mats (B/L = 1), and 
= 0.5 for long foundations (B/L=0).
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. (10.14) and (10.15). Meyerhof
(1965) compiled the observed maximum settlements for
mat foundations constructed on sand and gravel, as listed
in Table 10.1. In Eq. (10.14), if the depth factor, 1 +
0.33(Df/B), is assumed to be approximately
unity, then

From the values of qall(net) and N60 given in Columns

6 and 5, respectively, of Table 10.1, the magnitudes
of Se were calculated and are given in Column 8.
Column 9 of Table 10.1 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.
(10.14) or (10.15) will yield safe and conservative
values
Compensated Foundation
Figure 10.7 and Eq. (10.17) 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 generally referred to as the
compensated foundation design and is extremely
useful when structures 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
small and relatively uniform.
(See Figure 10.8.) From Eq. (10.17) and Figure 10.7,
the net average applied pressure on soil is

For no increase in the net pressure on soil below a

mat foundation, q should be zero.
Thus,

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 foundations (i.e., Df<Q/A) may be
given as
where qu(net) = net ultimate bearing capacity.
For saturated clays, the factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure can thus be obtained by
substituting Eq. (10.12) into Eq. (10.22):
The mat shown in Figure 10.7 has dimensions of 20 m x 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=140 kN/m2. Given that Df=1.5 m,
determine the factor of safety against bearing capacity
failure.
Consider a mat foundation 30 m x 40 m in plan, as
shown in Figure 10.9. The total dead load and live
load on the raft is 200x103 kN. Estimate the
consolidation settlement at the center of the
foundation.
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 concepts 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 10.10. In the conventional rigid method,
the entire raft is assumed to be rigid. The bottom of
the mat remains horizontal. The pressure applied to
the underlying soil is assumed to vary linearly. The
mat is divided into rectangular beams (i.e., a strip) in
both x and y directions, considering the tributary
areas. Each beam is analyzed as a structural
member, and reinforcements are
Provided from the structural design considerations
based on the bending moment and shear force
diagrams.
Step 1. Figure 10.10a shows mat dimensions of L x B
and column loads of Q1 ,Q2 ,Q3 , ….. Calculate the
total column load as

Step 2. Determine the pressure on the soil, q, below

the mat at points A, B, C, D, ….. , by using the
equation
coordinates:

and:

Similarly,
and:

It is also possible to determine ex, ey using (x, y)

coordinates.
where
A = BL
Ix = (1/12)BL3 = moment of inertia about the x-axis
Iy = (1/12)LB3 = moment of inertia about the y-axis
Mx = moment of the column loads about the x-axis
= Qex
My = moment of the column loads about the y-axis
= Qe y;x, y is coordinates with appropriate +/- signs
The load eccentricities, ex and ey,in the x and y
directions can be determined by using (x’, y’)
coordinates:
Step 3. Compare the values of the soil pressures
determined in Step 2 with the net allowable soil
pressure to determine whether q ≤ qall(net).
Step 4. Divide the mat into several strips in the x
and y directions. (See Figure 10.10.) 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
10.10a is
where
where qI and qF = 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 + Q2 + Q3
+ 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
Now, the modified average soil reaction becomes;

and the column load modification factor is

So the modified column loads are FQ1 , FQ2 , FQ3 ,

and FQ4 . This modified loading on the strip under
consideration is shown in Figure 10.10b. 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.
From here, the thickness of the mat and the
reinforcement details can be determined through
structural design considerations according to the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) or equivalent
codes or design standards. Examples 10.7 and 10.8
illustrate the use of the conventional rigid method
of mat foundation design.
From here, the thickness of the mat and the
reinforcement details can be determined through
structural design considerations according to the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) or equivalent
codes or design standards. Examples 10.7 and 10.8
illustrate the use of the conventional rigid method
of mat foundation design.
The plan of a mat foundation is shown in Figure
10.14. Calculate the soil pressure at points A, B, C, D,
E, and F. (Note: All column sections are planned to
be (0.5 m x 0.5 m.)
Divide the mat shown in Figure 10.14 into three
strips, such as AGHF (B 1 = 5.25 m), GIJH (B1 = 10
m), and ICDJ (B1 = 5.25 m). Using the result of
Example 10.7, determine the bending moment and
shear force diagrams in the y direction.