A

INTERNSHIP REPORT ON

COSTRUCTION OF SUB-STRUCTURE OF A MULTI STOREY

BUILDING
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

submitted

BY
B.MAHESH RAJ (19B65A0105)
V.NAGARAJ (18B61A0146)
M.JYOSHNA (18B61A0125)
K.RANI (19B65A0109)

PROJECT GUIDE

CH.HARI NAGA PRASAD (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)

i
 DECLARATION

We B.MAHESH RAJ(19B65A0105),V.NAGARAJ (18B61A0146),K.RANI(19B65A0109),

M.JYOSHNA(18B61A0125) are the student of B-Tech(civil engineering) of third year second
semester, Nalla Malla reddy engineering college here by we declare that the report entitled
“COSTRUCTION OF SUB-STRUCTURE OF A MULTI STOREY BUILDING” is an original work and data
provided in the study is authentic to the best of our knowledge. This report has not been
submitted to any other institute for the award of any degree.

BY

B.MAHESH RAJ (19B65A0105)

V.NAGARAJ (18B65A0146)
K.RANI (19B65A0109)
M.JYOSHNA (18B61A0125)

Date:

Place:Hyderabad

ii
 NALLA MALLA REDDY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE
(Accredited by NAAC with A grade NBA accredited(B.TECH IN CSE,ECE,EEE,MECH)

DIVYA NAGAR GHATKESAR MANDAL, MEDCHAL MALAKAJGIRI DISTRICT,TELANGANA

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that project report “COSTRUCTION OF SUB-STRUCTURE OF A MULTI

STOREY BUILDING ” is bonafide record work done by B.MAHESH RAJ (19B65A0105), V.NAGARAJ
(18B61A0146), K.RANI (19B65A0109 ), M. JYOSHNA (18B61A0125) submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of degree of Bachelor of technology in CIVIL ENGINEERING.

Project guide Head of Department

CH.HARI NAGA PRASAD DR.Y.SUDHAKAR REDDY

Principal

DR.M N V RAMESH

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this project work gives me an opportunity to convey my

gratitude to all those who have helped me to reach a stage where I have the confidence to
launch my career in this competitive world in the field of CivilEngineering.

My honest thankfulness to Mr CH.HARI NAGA PRASAD Assistant professor for his

kind help and for giving me the necessary guidance and valuable suggestions in completing
this project work and in preparing this report.

I express my sense of gratitude to DR.Y.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Head of Civil

Engineering department, who encouraged me to select this project and helped me in
completion of this project with providing necessary facilities.

I express my sincere thanks to DR.RAMESH, Principal, Nalla malla reddy

engineering college for providing all necessary facilities in completing my project report.

I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the management, teaching and non-
teaching staff of NMREC for their kind cooperation during the period of my study.

Finally I would like to thank my parents and friends for their continuous
encouragement and support during the entire course of this project.

By

B.MAHESHRAJ (19B65A0105)
V.NAGARAJ (18B61A0146)
M.JYOSHNA (18B61A0125)
K.RANI (19B65A0109 )

iv
 ABSTRACT

A foundation is a civil engineering concept that is, at its most basic, a substructure that is supported
by piles. This type of foundation allows any type of structure to actually be supported by a layer or
layers of soil. The soil is actually built up under the ground surface and the deeper the pile, or
support pole goes, the more stable the structure should be. One of the downsides to pile foundations
is that the soil must be hard enough to shore up the foundation and really keep the pile steady.
Locations where the soil is very soft will not provide any support for the pile, which can be
disastrous in some cases.

However, pile foundations can be used in areas with very poor soil conditions as long as the soil is
hard enough to hold up the piles and the structure built around them. In fact, this is one of the key
uses of pile foundations. The pile concept helps create a good, solid foundations in these types of
areas. Because areas with poor soil can be difficult to excavate and may not be capable of
supporting heavy structures, traditional foundations are not always an option. These types of areas
are usually filled with soft clay, loose soil, boulders, high ground-water levels, and other things that
make it difficult to build.By setting up pile foundations instead of traditional foundations that use
spread footing, the poor soil conditions have almost no impact on the foundation.
LIST OF FIGURES

FIG 1.1 ISOLATED SPREAD FOOTINGS

FIG 1.2 WALL FOOTINGS
FIG 1.3 MAT OR RAFT FOOTING
FIG 1.4 AXIAL COMPRESSIVE LOAD TRANSFER IN DEEP FOUNDATIONS
FIG 1.5 PILE FOUNDATIONS
FIG 1.6HIGHLY VARIABLE FOUNDATIONS IN SANDSTON
FIG 4.1: COLUMN LAYOUT AND FOOTING PLAN OF MULTI-STOREY BUILDING
FIG 4.2 COLUMN LAYOUT AND FOOTING
FIG 4.3 PLINTH BEAM
 Table of contents
Topic Page No

1.Chapter I Introduction

I Introduction 1
II Types of foundations 2
III Functions 5
IV Design and construction factors 5
V Geotechnical Investigations 6
VI Sources and avoidance of risk 7
VII Monitoring of foundation works 8

2.Chapter II Literature Review

I Literature Review 10

3.Chapter III Methodology

I Scope 15
II Terminology 15
III Site investigations 17
IV Geotechnical Design of foundations 23

4.Chapter IV Analysis and Experimental work

I Introduction 25
II Load calculations 26
III Design of RCC footings 27
IV Plinth beam 29
V Columns 30

Chapter V Scope and Future work

I Scope 33
II Conclusions 33

1
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I INTRODUCTION
The importance of a foundation in a structure is a major consideration in the construction
of any building, whether it is intended for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The
load of the structure is the primary consideration in thedesign.
Buildings, dams, monuments, bridges, piers, walls, roads, and any construction requiring a stable
base for successful execution requires accurate structural analysis as well as the in-depth review
of the supporting geology. Historical examples of failed design in foundation construction are
legion (Becker, 1997). The leaning tower of Pisa is a well-known early anomaly, built at a site
with inadequate geological load bearing capacity coupled with poor structural foundation design
(Buchanan, 2011). The Austin Dam failure in Pennsylvania in 1911 is a more recent example
which involved correct geological load bearing assessment but failed to recognize base rock
sliding and uplift risks as well as poor structural concrete design. At least one case of foundation
failure was intentional; some early constructions on permafrost deliberately utilized the slow
thawing of the frozen soil and resultant settling of the building to create subsurface basements
without the need for excavation. Fortunately more recent extreme foundations failures are rare.
This is largely due to the recognized need for correct geological site analysis and testing as well
as better structural design and construction processes.
Two broad categories of modern foundation design can be defined, the shallow form and
the deep form (Chopra, 1974). Shallow foundations include slabs, stem walls, footings,
basements, and other forms which can be created using surface excavation techniques. Deep
foundations refer to driven pilings and piers, shafts, caissons, injected borings, and forms which
derive stability from subsurface geological formations and soils underlying soil and rock are the
geotechnical contribution of the design process (Buchanan, 2010). A site survey is conducted to
identify the geological materials present. This survey may include testing and analysis of shallow
surface samples as well as deep core samples taken from drilled borings, and review of data from
existing related formations. The resulting geotechnical report will identify compressively and
shear load capacities available for the various layers of soils and rock formations present at the
proposed construction site. It may also identify settlement potential, moisture swelling, erosion
concerns, and freeze/thaw processes. This may result in modifying, moving, or even abandoning
a construction project site due to inadequate foundation support capacities of the local geology
(Clark,1998).
As the ultimate foundation of foundations, constant information exchange and
collaboration throughout the design and analysis process will continue to be the driving influence
for continual improvement in this vital construction element (Dunham, 1954).

The basic components of a building substructure are the foundation and plinth beam. These components
safely transfer the load from the superstructure to the ground.

More features of foundation and plinth beam are described below.

1
 II.TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS

1.SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

2.DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Shallow Foundations – are usually located no more than 6 ft below the lowest finished floor. A
shallow foundation system generally used when
1) The soil close the ground surface has sufficient bearing capacity, and
2) Underlying weaker strata do not result in undue settlement.
The shallow foundations are commonly used most economical foundation systems.

Footings are structural elements, which transfer loads to the soil from columns, walls or lateral
loads from earth retaining structures. In order to transfer these loads properly to the soil, footings
must be design to

• Prevent excessive settlement

• Minimize differential settlement, and
• Provide adequate safety against overturning and sliding.

Types of Footings

1.Isolated Spread Footings :Isolated footings (also known as Pad or Spread footings) are
commonly used for shallow foundations in order to carry and spread concentrated loads, caused for
example by columns or pillars. ... It is able to design the entire footing and to compute
settlement, rotation and bearing capacity of the footin

2
 Fig 1.1 : Isolated Spread Footings

2.WALL FOOTING:A wall footing or strip footing is a continuous strip of concrete that serves to
spread the weight of a load-bearing wall across an area of soil. It is the component of a shallow
foundation.

FIG 1.2 : WALL FOOTING

3.COMBINED FOOTING :Combined footings are constructed for two or more columns when
they are close to each other and their foundations overlap. Design of combined footings with
example is discussed. The function of a footing or a foundation is to transmit the load form the
structure to the underlying soil.

3
4.CANTILEVER OR STRAP FOOTING : A strap footing is a component of a
building's foundation. It is a type of combined footing, consisting of two or more
column footings connected by a concrete beam. This type of beam is called a strap beam.

5.MATT OR RAFT FOOTING : A raft foundation, also called a mat foundation, is essentially a
continuous slab resting on the soil that extends over the entire footprint of the building, thereby
supporting the building and transferring its weight to the ground.

FIG 1.3 :MATT OR RAFT FOOTING

6.DEEP FOUNDATION : A deep foundation is a type of foundation that transfers building loads
to the earth farther down from the surface than a shallow foundation does to a subsurface layer or a
range of depths. A pile or piling is a vertical structural element of a deep foundation, driven or
drilled deep into the ground at the building site.

4
 FIG 1.4 : AXIAL COMPRESSIVE LOAD TRANSFER IN DEEP FOUNDATIONS

7.PILE FOUNDATION :Pile foundations are deep foundations. They are formed by long, slender,
columnar elements typically made from steel or reinforced concrete, or sometimes timber.
A foundation is described as 'piled' when its depth is more than three times its breadth.

FIG 1.5 : PILE FOUNDATION

III.FUNCTIONS

The primary function of foundations is to provide adequate support to the structures which they
carry. This implies sufficient load bearing capacity to safely resist the effects of the various
combinations of permanent and transient loads transmitted to the founding strata, without excessive
deformation, which could otherwise compromise the integrity of the structure or impair its use. The
safe or allowable bearing pressure is therefore a function of the ultimate load bearing capacity of
the ground at the founding level and the load-settlement characteristics of the underlying layers. In
the case of rock foundations the allowable bearing pressure is determined from rock mechanics
principles, with due regard to the degree of weathering, the inclination of the rock strata, the
presence of shear planes, fissures and clay gouges in the bedding planes, among other factors.

On intact rock foundations, bearing capacity may be less critical than other
criteria, such as safety against overturning of earth retaining components for example. The

5
interaction between the structure and the ground when founding on compressible soils is an
important consideration regarding the articulation of the structure, usually to a greater degree than
when founding on rock. The deformation of soils under load can vary greatly depending on the
type, depth and characteristics of the soil, which are determined from in situ or laboratory tests.
When it is uneconomical or unsafe to found at shallow depth due to the estimated magnitude of the
deformation, it becomes necessary to resort to soil improvement or support on piles or caissons.
The safety of the foundations of river bridges and drainage culverts is also subject to the potential
effects of scour. Resistance to undermining by scour is dependent on the nature of the support
strata, the depth to founding and the protective measures, among other factors, which are beyond
the scope of this chapter.

IV DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FACTORS

The factors which relate to the foundations and which influence the design of structures and
subsequently become the concern of the contractor and those monitoring the construction of
foundations, can be summarised as follows:

1. Founding Material

(a) Soil or rock.

(b) Degree of compressibility, expansiveness, porosity etc.

2. Depth of Founding

(a) Shallow: usually not more than about 3 m.

(b) Intermediate: usually between about 3 m and 6 m.
(c) Deep: usually greater than 6 m.

3. Location of Founding

(a) Land environments, which are further subdivided into those which are:
• remote from existing constructions, or
• adjacent or near to existing services (roads, railway lines, pipelines etc) or structures
(buildings, bridges to be widened etc.).
(b) Water environments, in which the structure is required to be founded below water level, or in
waterlogged or unstable ground.

4 Method of Construction

6
(a) Access to and drainage of the excavations.
(b) Open unsupported excavations.
(c) Excavations which require lateral support.
(d) Underpinning of existing structures.
(e) The method of excavation and removal of spoil.

The circumstances which render it unsafe or uneconomical to construct conventional spread

footings and preferable to resort to piled foundations or caissons can vary greatly from site to site
and are likely to be influenced by the rate of progress needed to meet tight programmes, especially
in water environments subject to flooding.

V GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

It is of the utmost importance to obtain adequate and reliable knowledge of the sub-surface
conditions from well-planned geotechnical investigations. The information provided by such
investigations is required initially for design purposes and later as a guide during the tender and
construction stages. At the design stage, information about the founding conditions is one of the
main determinants in the selection of the structural form of bridges, the span lengths and the
configuration of the components of these structures. At the tender stage the foundation and other
site data are needed for the purposes of planning and pricing the permanent works and any
temporary works required for safety during excavations. This information is carried through to the
construction stage for implementation and the guidance of those monitoring the work.

VI SOURCES AND AVOIDANCE OF RISK

Foundation work is usually that part of the construction of structures which is the most uncertain
and prone to risk. The sources of risk include factors which affect the safety of the work during
construction and the utility of the structure on completion, such as the following:

(a) Inadequate or inaccurate data obtained from the geotechnical investigations.

(b) Inadequate or variable conditions encountered at the anticipated founding levels.
(c) The difficulties of access and drainage and the potential for inundation in water environments.
(d) The potential for the collapse of excavation sides, especially in the presence of groundwater and
when excavations are adjacent to existing roads, railway lines or structures.
(e) Inadequate lateral support of excavations, which can lead to settlement damage of adjacent
services or structures.

Unreliable foundation data can result in possible delays and additional costs in rectification,
potential claims for delay and in extreme cases to foundation failure.

Notwithstanding extensive foundation investigations it needs to be remembered that geological

conditions can be highly variable even over short distances. Founding conditions should therefore
always be treated as uncertain prior to excavation.

7
 FIG 1.7 : HIGHLY VARIABLE FOUNDATIONS IN SANDSTONE

Uniformity in foundations is necessary to avoid the risk of differential settlement and distortion of
the structure. When founding conditions at the anticipated levels differ significantly from those
anticipated, advice should always be sought from the engineer on the steps to be followed. A
provisional sum for Additional foundation investigation should be included in the Bill of Quantities
to cater for this contingency (such as COLTO Item 61.01, for example). Identification of the
specific hazards and risks of foundation construction and formulation of the means to counteract
these are critical initial steps in the avoidance ofrisk on any project. This must be followed by the
diligent application and monitoring of the contractor's health and safety plan, as discussed in the
ssssssssssssfollowing sections.

VII MONITORING OF FOUNDATION WORK

The function and duties of the various personnel appointed to administer and monitor construction
contracts are outlined in Chapter 2. However, during foundation work additional vigilance is
required because of the difficulties and hazards often arising during this stage of construction.

It also needs to be borne in mind that the start dates of subsequent elements of the work are
dependent on timely progress with foundation construction and therefore require prompt response
by the monitoring staff to the contractor's requests for inspections, answers to queries, instructions
regarding unforeseen conditions, approvals and so on.

In this chapter reference is made to the contractor's competent person (CCP), appointed to design,
inspect and verify the adequacy of temporary works, such as lateral support, required during the
excavation and substructure work. In terms of the Engineering Profession Act (No. 46 of 2000) the
CCP is required to be registered and competent in relation to the services to be rendered.

The monitoring staff should therefore:

• ascertain that the contractor has acted upon any concerns they may have recorded about the design
and installation of the temporary works;
• ensure that the CCP has inspected and signed off the temporary works, and
• regularly thereafter inspect the temporary works until and during removal.

8
Any signs of distress in the temporary works, such as undue deflection or the settlement or cracking
of the ground behind lateral support for example, must immediately be reported to the contractor
and the engineer as these are indications of incipient failure.

Monitoring staff who require more detailed information and guidance about all aspects of
foundation engineering relevant to their duties are encouraged to study the references listed at the
end of this chapter.

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTOR'S SUBMISSIONS

Contract Documents Prior to the commencement of construction the monitoring staff will be
furnished with the contract documents, which comprise: general conditions of contract,
specifications, project document, drawings and relevant reports.

With regard to the foundations, they are expected to thoroughly familiarise themselves with the
drawings, geotechnical reports, hydrological reports when applicable, and any special foundation
construction requirements, in order to understand the requirements of the design and guard against
anticipated difficulties and hazards.

WARNING Whereas the responsibility for temporary works remains solely that of the contractor
and does not devolve to either the engineer or to the monitoring staff, they have a duty to appraise
the design, installation and removal of the temporary works. Foundations

Contractor's Submissions

At an early stage after the award, the contractor will be required to submit the following
information and construction proposals:
(a) Construction programme.
(b) Health and safety plan.
(c) Environmental management plan.
(d) Temporary works drawings for lateral support (including calculations if required).
(e) Method statements, including diagrams if necessary, for access and drainage works such as:
temporary river or stream diversions, causeways, islands, cofferdams and dewatering arrangements.

The monitoring staff are required to critically review these submissions with regard to the feasible
sequencing of the work, practicality, safety, environmental constraints and inadvertent omissions.
The contractor must be advised of any perceived shortcomings in these submissions and instructed
to make adjustments if necessary.

It is important to carefully appraise the contractor's proposals for the removal of temporary lateral
supports as the most hazardous conditions often arise during this stage of foundation work, which is
usually undertaken simultaneously with backfilling operations.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
I LITERATURE REVIEW
Aghabari and Mohamedzein (2004) proposed a modified bearing capacity equation for skirted
strip foundations on dense sand. They carried out a series oftests on models to study the factors that
affect the bearing capacity offoundations with skirt. They studied and incorporated various factors
such as foundation base friction, skirt depth, skirt side roughness, skirt stiffness, soil
compressibility etc. The results obtained from the proposed equations were compared with results
obtained from Terzaghi, Meyerhof Hansen and Vesic bearing capacity equations for foundations
without skirt. Comparisons show that the use ofstructural skirt can improve the Bearing Capacity by
factor of 1.5 to 3.9 depending on the geometrical and structural properties of the skirts and
foundations, soil characteristics and interface conditions ofthe soil-skirt-foundation system.

Aghabari and Mohamedzein (2004) studied the models of strip footing with structural skirts
resting on sand. A modified bearing capacity equation was proposed for skirted strip foundation on
dense sand. The prediction of the proposed equations is in excellent agreement with the
experimental results. The experimental results showed that the use ofstructural skirts reduce the
settlement by a factor up to 3 depending on skirt depth, geometrical properties of skirt and footing,
soil characteristics and the applied load. The structural skirts modified the Load-settlement curve
for the footing by increasing the strain at Mure to about 22%.

Aghabari and Mohamedzein (2006) presented the results of an experimental study on the
behaviour of circular foundations with a structural skirt resting on sand. The structural skirts were
fixed to perimeter of the foundations and can be used to new or existing shallow foundations. The
model test results indicate that this type ofreinforcement increases the bearing capacity of sub
grades and modifies the load displacement of the footing. It was also found that structural skirts
reduce the settlement the surface footings without structural skirts. The settlement of a surface
footing without structural skirt is reduced to 11% at a working stresslevel which is 50% ofultimate
bearing capacity.

Aghabari (2007) presented the findings of an experimental study concerning a method ofreducing
the settlement ofshallow circular foundations on sand. It involves the use ofstructural skirts fixed to
the edges offoundation. The experiment were performed in a large tank setting and the footing was
instrumented in order to measure the normal stresses and settlement. The testresults indicate that
skirts reducesthe settlement ofcircular footing and modifies the stress-displacement behaviour of
the footing. A settlement reduction factor (SRF) was proposed which takes in to account the
influence that effect settlement. Results show that the use ofstructured skirt can produce enhanced
settlement reduction in the range of0.1 to 1.0 depending on stress applied and skirt depth.

10
Bransby and Randolph (1997) studied on the finite element modeling ofskirted strip footings
subject to combined loadings .The response of skirted offshore foundations to combined vertical
(V), moment (M) and horizontal (H) loading was studied using two dimensional finite element
analysis. Despite using a simple constitutive model and geometry, new information was gained
about the shape of the yield locus and the soil deformation mechanisms occurring at yield. The
shape ofthe yield locus was similar to that predicted by previous workers in V-M and V-H space
but differed significantly in M-H space. This behaviour was explained using upper bound plasticity
mechanisms suggested by soil deformation mechanisms observed in the finite element analysis.
This procedure was used to give a good approximation to the shape ofthe yield locus and should
form the basis for future design methods.
Bransby and Randolph (1999) studied on the effect of skirted foundation to combined V-M-H
loadings. The behaviour of skirted strip footings and circular footings subjected to combined
vertical, horizontal and moment loading has been studied using finite element and plasticity
analysis of equivalent surface foundations. The shape of the yield locus for the two foundation
geometries was found to be similar but the pure vertical, moment and horizontal capacities varied
with the footing shape and soil strength profile. Design methods to allow for footing shape and soil
strength profile have been recommended.

Bransby and Randolph (1999) studied on the effect of skirted foundation to combined V-M-H
loadings. The behaviour of skirted strip footings and circular footings subjected to combined
vertical, horizontal and moment loading has been studied using finite element and plasticity
analysis of equivalent surface foundations. The shape of the yield locus for the two foundation
geometries was found to be similar but the pure vertical, moment and horizontal capacities varied
with the footing shape and soil strength profile. Design methods to allow for footing shape and soil
strength profile have been recommended.

Bransby (2000) studied on the Finite element analysis ofjacket structures with bucket foundations.
The behaviour of a two-dimensional idealisation of a jacket structure 10 and a monopod with
bucket foundations has been studied using finite element analysis, elasto-plastic design methods
and lower bound plasticity analysis. Reasonably good agreement between failure loads suggest the
accuracy offailure load prediction.

Bransby and Yun (2009) studied the response of skirted foundation to combined vertical,
horizontal and moment loading, which is very important in offshore installations. The assumption
ofthe previous researchers was that the soil within the skirt remains rigid during undrained loading,
but this assumption has not been investigated rigorously. A series of plane- strain finite element
analysis has been conducted to investigate directly how the skirt geometry affects undrained strip
foundation capacity under combined horizontal moment loading and the mechanisms occurring at
failure. The failure envelop for skirted foundations with different embedment ratios differed
significantly.

Byrne (2001) presents results from laboratory investigation of monotonic loading response
ofskirted shallow foundation on sand, with particular emphasis on loads relevant to the wind turbine
problem. The investigation includes varying length of the skirt compared with the diameter of the
foundation as well as varying the mineralogy and density of sand deposits. Results from vertical

11
bearing capacity tests are presented and compared with simple theoretical expression based on
standard bearing capacity formulae.

Byrne and Houlsby (2002) studied novel foundations for offshore wind power generation. In
recent years there has been a worldwide increase in the pressure to develop sources of renewable
energy. In contrast to typical oil and gas structures the foundation may account for up to forty
percent of the projected installed cost. The weight of each structure is very low, so the applied
vertical load on the foundation will be small compared to die moment load derived from the wind
and waves. One solution is to use conventional piling. However, at some sites it may prove more
economical to use shallow foundations, and in particular suction installed skirted foundations. At
Oxford University a program of research on skirted foundations has been underway for the last five
years, and much progress has been made on the understanding ofthis type of foundation under
combined loading.

Cassidy, Byrne and Randolph (2004) studied a comparison ofthe combined load behaviour of
spudcan and caisson foundations on soft normally consolidated clay. 11 Experimental data from
loading tests of model circular footings on soft normally consolidated clay are presented. The
experiments were carried out on a drum centrifuge at a radial acceleration level equivalent to 100
times Earth’s gravity, ensuring conditions of stress similitude between the model and the prototype
scale. The aim ofthe experiments was to compare the undrained response of different offshore
foundations to the same loading conditions. Two different types of foundation were targeted for
investigation: spudcans and suction caissons. The spudcan, typically an inverted shallow cone, is
die traditional footing for mobile drilling units (also known as jack-up rigs). An alternative
foundation concept that is being increasingly considered is that offoundations skirted about the
perimeter and installed by suction. A loading arm that incorporated an internal hinge was used so
that combinations ofload appropriate to the foundations ofjack-up units could be applied to the
models. There was a stiffer response and additional horizontal capacity at the foundation level.
Significantly the use of skirted foundations allowed for a greater combined loading capacity under
tensile vertical loads. The results have been interpreted within the framework ofstrain-hardening
plasticity theory, and comparisons with existing yield surfaces are detailed.

Celep (1990) considered the problem of a thin elastic circular ring on a tension less Winkler
foundations. It is assumed that the ring is subjected to time dependent in-planed loads. The analysis
is based on the harmonic approximation for the deflection function of the ring.

Das (1983) designed the skirted foundations by the method of optimal limit state of design. Two
models based on contact pressure distribution on the skirt wall have been developed for the study.
The first model uses uniform contact pressure distribution under the footing and linear pressure
distribution the skirt wall. The second model stands for uniform pressure distribution under the
footing slab and nonlinear pressure distribution on the skirt wall.

Das and Omar (1994) presented laboratory model test results for the ultimate bearing capacity of
surface strip foundations on geogrid reinforced sand. A fine uniform sand and one type od geogrid
were used for the tests. The width offoundation and relative density ofthe sand were varied to
determine their effects on the bearing capacity ratio. It 12 was found that the bearing capacity ratio
of the sand-geogrid system decreased with an increase in foundation width. However above a

12
certain foundation width (130mm-140mm) a practically constant value ofbearing capacity ratio was
observed.

Das and Khing (1994) presented results oflaboratory model tests to determine the ultimate bearing
capacity, variation ofstrip foundation ofa stronger sand layer underlain by a near saturated weaker
clay layar. Also included in this study is the effect ofthe presence of a void with a rectangular cross
section in the weaker clay layer immediately below and parallel to the central axis ofthe foundation.
Based on the model test results, the variations ofthe ultimate bearing capacity and the bearing
capacity ratio with the depth ofvoid below the foundation are presented.

Dash et al. (2003) studied the effectiveness of geocell reinforcement placed in the granular fill
overlying soft clay beds by small-scale model tests in the laboratory. The test beds were subjected
to monotonic loading by a rigid circular footing. Footing load, footing settlement and deformations
on the fill surface were measured during the tests. The influence ofwidth and height ofgeocell
mattress as well as that of a planar geogrid layer at the base of the geocell mattress on the overall
performance of the system has been systematically studied through a series of tests. A seven fold
increase in file bearing capacity ofthe circular footing can be obtained by providing geocell
reinforcement along with a basal geogrid layer in the sand bed underlying soft clay.

Dewoolkar et al studied on the physical and finite element modeling of lateral stability of offshore
skirted gravity structures subjected to iceberg impact load. Stability mainly against sliding ofa
typical, relatively large skirted gravity structure was investigated using three-dimensional finite
element modeling. The numerical model was validated against centrifuge test results. A specific set
of dimensions was chosen to model a typical skirted gravity structure in a centrifuge with two types
of foundation soils: uniform saturated sand and a clay zone sandwiched between two sand layers.
Soil shear strength parameters used in the finite element models were estimated from in-flight cone
penetration resistance measurements obtained in the centrifuge. Numerical parametric studies were
conducted using the validated finite element model. The parameters included were the depth and
strength ofthe clay zone and the inclination of external load. It is shown that a 13 TJ532- relatively
simple three-dimensional finite element model was effective in providing information that would be
needed to design such a critical and expensive offshore structure. Basic Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters and moduli based on cone penetration resistance measurements and published empirical
correlations were appropriate in modeling the soils in the finite element simulations.

Fragaszy and Lawton (1984) studied the optimum number of layers of reinforcement and the
optimum depth to the first layer of reinforcement required. They described a series of model tests
designed to determine the influence of soil density and reinforcing strip length on the load-
settlement behaviour ofreinforced sand

Gourvenec (2002) presented the results oftwo and three dimensional finite-elememt analyses ofthe
combined loading ofstrip and circular skirted foundations on homogenous and non homogenous
clay are presented. The results are presented in terms ofthe shape of the failure envelop in vertical,
moment and horizontal loading space and compared with data from similar studies where either soil
non-homogeneity or three dimensional geometry was investigated.

13
Gourvenec and Randolph (2003) studied the effect ofstrength non-homogeneity on the shape of
failure envelopes for combined loading of strip and circular foundations on clay. The capacity
ofsurface foundations on clay under pure vertical (V), horizontal (H) or moment (M) loading may
be expressed in non-dimensional form through the use of appropriate bearing capacity factors. With
a view to applications involving partially embedded foundations, such as offshore skirted
foundations, full suction and ‘bonding’ with the underlying soil has been assumed. The paper
documents the normalised capacities under uniaxial (V, M or H) loading, and compares the shapes
ofthe failure envelopes in the three planes for a practical range ofstrength gradients. The broad
conclusion is that a single shape does indeed hold in the M= 0 plane, for both strip and circular
foundations, but that for the H = 0 and V = 0 planes the overall size ofthe normalised failure
envelope reduces as the degree ofstrength non-homogeneity increases.

Gourvenec (2007) studied the failure envelopes for offshore shallow foundations under general
loading. The interaction of vertical, horizontal and moment (VHM) loads acting on a shallow
foundation is complex, and it is becoming increasingly popular to 14 represent ultimate limit states
under general VHM loading as failure envelopes in threedimensional load space.

General loading is of particular interest offshore, where harsh environmental conditions lead to
large horizontal and moment foundation loads. Shallow foundations with peripheral skirts that
penetrate into the sea bed are used to resist large lateral and overturning forces. During undrained
loading, tensile resistance can be mobilised on the underside of the base plate by suctions developed
within the skirt compartment This paper presents failure envelopes and kinematic mechanisms for
undrained ultimate limit states of circularskirted foundations in uniform and heterogeneous deposits
under general VHM loading based on finite element results. An approximating method is proposed
that permits accurate prediction of ultimate limit states under a Ml range ofgeneral loading.

14
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter a brief explanation is given on which the different methods are adopted for the
construction of foundations

I SCOPE

The design and construction of foundations of buildings and structures for the safe support of dead
and superimposed loads without exceeding the allowable bearing stresses, permissible settlements
and design capability.

II TERMINOLOGY

ALLOWABLE LOAD: The maximum load that may be safely applied to a foundation unit,
considering both the strength and settlement of the soil, under expected loading and soil conditions.

DESIGN LOAD: The expected un‐factored load to a foundation unit.

GROSS PRESSURE: The total pressure at the base of a footing due to the weight of the
superstructure and the original overburden pressure.

NET PRESSURE: The gross pressure minus the surcharge pressure i.e. the overburden pressure of
the soil at the foundation level.

SERVICE LOAD: The expected unfactored load to a foundation unit.

15
BEARING CAPACITY: The general term used to describe the load carrying capacity of
foundation soil or rock in terms of average pressure that enables it to bear and transmit loads from a
structure.

BEARING SURFACE: The contact surface between a foundation unit and the soil or rock upon
which the foundation rests.

DESIGN BEARING CAPACITY: The maximum net average pressure applied to a soil or rock by
a foundation unit that the foundation soil or rock will safely carry without the risk of both shear
failure and permissible settlement. It is equal to the least of the two values of net allowable bearing
capacity and safe bearing pressure. This may also be called ALLOWABLE BEARING
PRESSURE. GROSS ALLOWABLE

BEARING PRESSURE: The maximum gross average pressure of loading that the soil can safely
carry with a factor of safety considering risk of shear failure. This may be calculated by dividing
gross ultimate bearing capacity with a factor of safety.

GROSS ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY: The maximum average gross pressure of loading
at the base of a foundation which initiates shear failure of the supporting soil

III SITE INVESTIGATIONS

1.SubSurface

Survey Depending on the type of project thorough investigations has to be carried out for
identification, location, alignment and depth of various utilities, e.g., pipelines, cables, sewerage
lines, water mains etc. below the surface of the existing ground level. Detailed survey may also be
conducted to ascertain the topography of the existing ground.

2 SubSoil Investigations

Subsoil investigation shall be done describing the character, nature, load bearing capacity and
settlement capacity of the soil before constructing a new building and structure or for alteration of
the foundation of an existing structure.

The aims of a geotechnical investigation are to establish the soil, rock and groundwater conditions,
to determine the properties of the soil and rock, and to gather additional relevant knowledge about
the site. Careful collection, recording and interpretation of geotechnical information shall be made.
This information shall include ground conditions, geology, geomorphology, seismicity and
hydrology, as relevant. Indications of the variability of the ground shall be taken into account.

An engineering geological study may be an important consideration to establish the physiographic

setting and stratigraphic sequences of soil strata of the area. Geological and agricultural soil maps
of the area may give valuable information of site conditions. During the various phases of sub‐soil
investigations, e.g. drilling of boreholes, field tests, sampling, groundwater measurements, etc. a

16
competent graduate engineer having experiences in supervising sub‐soil exploration works shall be
employed by the drilling contractor.

3 SITE CLEARANCE

The process of site clearance is generally undertaken as part of enabling works, carried out to
prepare a site for construction. It involves the clearing the site to allow other remedial, treatment
or demolition works to take place before the actual construction works can begin.

It involves clearing a site of any machinery or equipment, unwanted surplus materials, rubbish, and
so on. Site clearance may also involve clearing away vegetation and surface soil, and levelling and
preparing the ground for the planned construction works. Care should be taken to ensure that there
are the correct approvals in place, particularly for trees which may be protected.

A site waste management plan (SWMP) may be prepared before site clearance begins. This
describes how materials will be managed efficiently and disposed of legally, explaining how the re-
use and recycling of materials will be maximised. All types of waste present on the site must be
removed safely and efficiently. If there is any contaminated waste or potentially hazardous
substances (such as asbestos), professional disposal experts must be consulted to safely handle
them.

4.EXCAVATION

Work procedure for excavation at construction site involves understanding of centre line and
excavation drawings, setting out of plan on ground, excavation of soil and removal of excess soil.
Quality checks such as recording ground level and marking of reference points should be done.

Excavation is the process of moving earth, rock or other materials with tools, equipment or
explosives. It also includes trenching, wall shafts, tunnelling and underground. It is the preliminary
activity of the construction project.

Drawings Required for Excavation

A. Centerline Drawing or Gridline Drawing

Gridline drawings represents the grids marked in numbers and alphabets whose measurements are
shown for site marking out reference. These grid lines are so aligned that the line falls on the
excavation and footing.

B. Excavation Drawing

17
 Excavation drawing represents the length, width and depth of the excavation. Excavation line is
marked in dotted line.

C.Scope of the work for Excavation

The major works done before, while and after excavation are as follows,

1. Setting out of corner benchmarks.

2. Survey for ground levels.

3. Survey for top levels

4. Excavation to approved depth.

5. Dressing of loose soil.

6. Making up to cut off level

7. Constructing dewatering wells and interconnecting trenches.

8. Marking boundaries of the building.

9. Constructing protection bunds and drains.

Working Procedure of Excavation

1. The first and primary step involved in the excavation is to find out the extent of soil and Clearing of
construction site is of unwanted bushes, weeds and plants.

2. Setting out or ground tracing is the process of laying down the excavation lines and centre lines etc.
on the ground before the excavation is started.

3. Maximum of 4 and minimum of 2 benchmarks are marked in the corner for the measurement of
level. These benchmarks are marked on permanent structures like, plinth, road or tree.

4. The tracing is marked by lime powder.

5. With the reference of drawing and benchmarks the depth of the excavation is fixed.

6. Excavation is done by manual or machine means depending on the availability.

18
7. The excavated soil is to either removed out the site or stocked around the excavation pit. Minimum
of 1m distance must be maintained between the stocking of excess soil and pit, so that due to rain or
other forces the soil should not sweep into the pits.

8. Dressing of excavated pits is to be done as specified in the drawings.

9. If the site is located in loose soil area, proper shoring must be done to hold the loose soil.

10. Construction of dewatering wells and interconnecting trenches are to provided if needed.

11. All the sides of the building must be sealed for the safety propose.

3 Methods of Exploration

Subsoil exploration process may be grouped into three types of activities such as: reconnaissance,
exploration and detailed investigations. The reconnaissance method includes geophysical
measurements, sounding or probing, while exploratory methods involve various drilling techniques.
Field investigations should comprise

(i) drilling and/or excavations (test pits including exploratory boreholes) for sampling;
(ii) groundwater measurements;
(iii) field tests.

Examples of the various types of field investigations are:

(i) field testing (e.g. CPT, SPT, dynamic probing, WST, pressuremeter tests, dilatometer
tests, plate load tests, field vane tests and permeability tests);
(ii) soil sampling for description of the soil and laboratory tests;
(iii) groundwater measurements to determine the groundwater table or the pore pressure
profile and their fluctuations
(iv) geophysical investigations (e.g. seismic profiling, ground penetrating radar, resistivity
measurements and down hole logging);
(v) large scale tests, for example to determine the bearing capacity or the behaviour directly
on Prototype elements, such as anchors.

Where ground contamination or soil gas is expected, information shall be gathered from the
relevant sources. This information shall be taken into account when planning the ground
investigation. Some of the common methods of exploration, methods of sampling and ground
water measurements in soils are described

4 Number and Location of Investigation Points

The locations of investigation points, eg., pits and boreholes shall be selected on the basis of the
preliminary investigations as a function of the geological conditions, the dimensions of the structure

19
and the engineering problems involved. When selecting the locations of investigation points, the
following should be observed:

(i) the investigation points should be arranged in such a pattern that the stratification can be
assessed across the site;
(ii) the investigation points for a building or structure should be placed at critical points
relative to the shape, structural behaviour and expected load distribution
(iii) for linear structures, investigation points should be arranged at adequate offsets to the
centre line, depending on the overall width of the structure, such as an embankment
footprint or a cutting;
(iv) for structures on or near slopes and steps in the terrain (including excavations),
investigation points should also be arranged outside the project area, these being located so
that the stability of the slope or cut can be assessed. Where anchorages are installed, due
Consideration should be given to the likely stresses in their load transfer zone;
(v) the investigation points should be arranged so that they do not present a hazard to the
structure, the construction work, or the surroundings (e.g. as a result of the changes they
may cause to the ground and groundwater conditions);
(vi) the area considered in the design investigations should extend into the neighbouring
area to a distance where no harmful influence on the neighbouring area is expected.

Where ground conditions are relatively uniform or the ground is known to have sufficient strength
and stiffness properties, wider spacing or fewer investigation points may be applied. In either case,
this choice should be justified by local experience.

The locations and spacing of sounding, pits and boreholes shall be such that the soil profiles
obtained will permit a reasonably accurate estimate of the extent and character of the intervening
soil or rock masses and will disclose important irregularities in subsurface conditions. For building
structures, the following guidelines shall be followed:

(i) For large areas covering industrial and residential colonies, the geological nature of the
terrain will help in deciding the number of boreholes or trial pits. The whole area may be
divided into grid pattern with Cone Penetration Tests (see Appendix‐ 6.3.B)
performed at every 100 m grid points. The number of boreholes or trial pits shall be
decided by examining the variation in penetration curves. At least 67% of the required
number of borings or trial pits shall be located within the area under the building.
(ii) In compact building sites covering an area of 0.4 hectare (43,000 square feet), one
borehole or trial pit in each corner and one in centre shall be adequate.
(iii) For widely spaced buildings covering an area of less than 90 m2 (1000 square feet)
and a height less than four storeys, at least one borehole or trial pit in the centre shall be
done.

5 Depth of Exploration

The depth of investigations shall be extended to all strata that will affect the project or are affected
by the construction. The depth of exploration shall depend to some extent on the site and type of the
proposed structure, and on certain design considerations such as safety against foundation failure,
excessive settlement, seepage and earth pressure. Cognizance shall be taken of the character and
20
sequence of the subsurface strata. The site investigation should be carried to such a depth that the
entire zone of soil or rock affected by the changes caused by the building or the construction will be
adequately explored. A rule of thumb used for this purpose is to extend the borings to a depth where
the additional load resulting from the proposed building is less than 10% of the average load of the
structure, or less than 5% of the effective stress in the soil at that depth. Where the depth of
investigation cannot be related to background information, the following guide lines are suggested
to determine the depth of exploration:

(a) Where substructure units will be supported on spread footings, the minimum depth
boring should extend below the anticipated bearing level a minimum of two footing widths
for isolated, individual footings where length ≤ two times width, and four footing widths
for footings where length > five times width.For intermediate footing lengths, the
minimum depth of boring may be estimated by linear interpolation as a function of length
between depths of two times width and five times width below the bearing level. Greater depth
may be required where warranted by local conditions.
(b) For more heavily loaded structures, such as multistoried structures and for framed
structures,at least 50% of the borings should be extended to a depth equal to 1.5 times
the width of the building below the lowest part of the foundation.
(c) Normally the depth of exploration shall be one and a half times the estimated width or
the least dimension of the footing below the foundation level. If the pressure bulbs for a
number of loaded areas overlap, the whole area may be considered as loaded and
exploration shall be carried down to one and a half times the least dimension. In weak
soils, the exploration shall be continued to a depth at which the loads can be carried by the
stratum in question without undesirable settlement or shear failure.
(d) Where substructure units will be supported on deep foundations, the depth boring
should extend a minimum of 6 m below the anticipated pile of shaft tip elevation. Where
pile or shaft groups will be used, the boring should extend at least two times the
maximum pile or shaft group dimension below the anticipated tip elevation, unless
the foundation will be end bearing on or in rock.
(e) For piles bearing on rock, a minimum of 1.5 m of rock core should be obtained at each
boring location to ensure the boring has not been terminated in a boulder.
(f) For shafts supported on or extending into rock, a minimum of 1.5 m of rock core, or a
length of rock core equal to at least three times the shaft diameter for isolated shafts or
two times the maximum shaft group dimension for a shaft group, whichever is greater,
should be obtained to ensure that the boring had not been terminated in a boulder and to
determine the physical properties of rock within the zone of foundation influence for
design.
(g) The depth, to which weathering process affects the deposit, shall be regarded as the
minimum depth of exploration for a site. However, in no case shall this depth be less
than 2 m, but where industrial processes affect the soil characteristics, this depth may be
more.
(h) It is good practice to have at least one boring carried to bedrock, or to well below
the anticipated level of influence of the building. Bedrock should be proved by coring
into it to a minimum depth of 3 m.

6 Geotechnical Investigation Report

21
The results of a geotechnical investigation shall be compiled in the Geotechnical Investigation
Report which shall form a part of the Geotechnical Design Report. The Geotechnical Investigation
Report shall consist of the following:
(i) a presentation of all appropriate geotechnical information on field and laboratory tests
including geological features and relevant data;
(ii) a geotechnical evaluation of the information, stating the assumptions made in the
interpretation of the test results.

The Geotechnical Investigation Report shall state known limitations of the results, if appropriate.
The Geotechnical Investigation Report should propose necessary further field and laboratory
investigations, with comments justifying the need for this further work. Such proposals should be
accompanied by a detailed programme for the further investigations to be carried out.

The presentation of geotechnical information shall include a factual account of all field and
laboratory investigations. The factual account should include the following information:

− the purpose and scope of the geotechnical investigation including a description of the site and its
topography, of the planned structure and the stage of the planning the account is referring to;
− the names of all consultants and contractors; − the dates between which field and laboratory
investigations were performed;
− the field reconnaissance of the site of the project and the surrounding area noting particularly:

i) evidence of groundwater;
ii) behaviour of neighbouring structures;
iii) exposures in quarries and borrow areas;
iv) areas of instability;
v) difficulties during excavation;
vi) history of the site;
vii) geology of the site,
viii)survey data with plans showing the structure and the location of all investigation points;
ix) local experience in the area; x) information about the seismicity of the area.

IV GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS

1 General

foundations on soil shall be designed to support the design loads with adequate bearing and
structural capacity and with tolerable settlements. In addition, the capacity of footings subjected to
seismic and dynamic loads shall be appropriately evaluated. The location of the resultant pressure
on the base of the footings should be maintained preferably within B/6 of the centre of the footing.

2 Design Load

Shallow foundation design (considering bearing capacity due to shear strength) shall consider the
most unfavourable effect of the following combinations of loading:

22
 (a) Full Dead Load + Normal Live Load
(b) Full Dead Load + Normal Live Load + Wind Load or Seismic Load
(c) 0.9 ×(Full Dead Load) + Buoyancy Pressure

Shallow foundation design (considering settlement) shall consider the most unfavourable effect of
the following combinations of loading:

SAND

(a) Full Dead Load + Normal Live Load

(b) Full Dead Load + Normal Live Load + Wind Load or Seismic Load
CLAY

Full Dead Load + 0.5× Normal Live Load

3 Bearing capacity

When physical characteristics such as cohesion, angle of internal friction, density etc. are available,
the bearing capacity shall be calculated from stability considerations. Established bearing capacity
equations shall be used for calculating bearing capacity. A factor of safety of between 2.0 to 3.0
(depending on the extent of soil exploration, quality control and monitoring of construction) shall
be adopted to obtain allowable bearing pressure when dead load and normal live load is used.
Thirty three percent overstressing above allowable pressure shall be allowed in case of design
considering wind or seismic loading. Allowable load shall also limit settlement between supporting
elements to a tolerable limit.

4 Presumptive Bearing Capacity for Preliminary Design

For lightly loaded and small sized structures (two storied or less in occupancy category A, B, C &
D) and for preliminary design of any structure, the presumptive bearing values (allowable) as given
in Table 6.3.6 may be assumed for uniform soil in the absence of test results.

23
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL WORK

I. Introduction
A simple multi-storey residential unit at SUNDER BHAVAN, HYDERABAD in India had been
chosen. It had been designed by the team of design campus comprising of architects, engineers and
designers.

24
The total area of the ground floor plan is 2400 sq. ft. It is a G+3 structure i.e. it consists of four
floors including the ground floor.

The structure is a reinforced framed-structure supported on the column-beam frame. The lowermost
floor that is partially under the ground level has been allotted for parking of vehicles.

The area under consideration is covered by alluvial soil (Welfare and Development Directorate and
the Department of Agriculture). The city spans over an area of about 500sq/km and is found to lie
between the longitudes 78°0' to 78°15' E and the latitudes 26°0' to 26°15’ N. The average monthly
temperature is found to vary from to .

Besides alluvium, the area is also covered by sandstone, Quartzite, dolerite and shale. The
permeability index (PI) of the groundwater in the area ranges between the values 0.425 and 199.65
epm (Singh & Singh, 2008). Characteristics of the soil are useful determinants of its performance
under loading and hence predicts the stability of the structure. The property exercising maximum
influence on the on the physical characteristics is the particle-size distribution. Besides this, the
surface texture, moisture content, density and the chemical composition are other significant
parameters in ascertaining the soil behaviors.

Under ordinary circumstances, the properties of the soils composed primarily of coarse materials
are controlled by the properties of its particles. However, in the case of clayey or colloidal soils, the

25
moisture content plays the most important role. Furthermore, some soils and ground water can also
have corrosive action on the metals that are used for building construction such as cast iron. It may
also bring about the deterioration of cement concrete. The deteriorating action can be attributed to
several external agencies such as industrial wastes, sea water or other saline waters, sulphates
originating in clay soils and the acidicity (Khanna, 2001).

With the help of this data, it can be observed that the soil is acidic in nature with a pH value ranging
from 8.3 to 8.7 which is quite above the neutral value. The mineral content is within the permissible
ranges, therefore no special treatment is required for them. However, the amount of sodium is
slightly lesser.From the table, it can inferred that the ground water is not saline or contains very
minute salt content at certain locations. Therefore, the conditions are naturally favourable and no
external measures are required. The actual distribution of pressure depends upon the nature of soil
and the extent of the flexibility of the base (Punmia B. , 1973).

II Load calculations
1. Dead load for each floor in the residential unit can be taken to be equal to 200kg/sq. m (Khanna,
2001). Therefore, the total dead load due to all the four floors of the structure will become equal to
800kg/ sq. m.

2. Load due to stairs and landing is 300 kg/sq. m.

3. Superimposed or live load is contributed by the people or users and the immovable objects
brought inside the building. The average weight of a man is 68 KG.5 men standing on a space of
0.84 sq.mt.since the building is multi storey, It can be expected that it will be used by many people
at a given point of time . The total live load can be taken as 400 kg/sq.mt

4. Superimposed loads can also be attributed to wind and seismic loads. Another 100 kg/ sq. m.
should be added to counter-balance these effects. Thus, the total amount of load that the structure
needs to carry is 1600 kg/ sq. m. Depth of foundation=120 cm. in the case of multi-storey building
on a firm soil.

III Design of the R.C.C. footing

The type of foundation to be provided here is spread foundation.

1. There are eleven F1-Columns. The length and breadth of the footings for these columns will be
equal to 6’0”. The area of the footing then becomes equal to 36 sq. ft.
2. Again, there are six F2-Columns. For these 9 columns, the footing size shall be taken as 25 sq.
ft., with the length and breadth carrying a value of 5’0” each.

3. The footing size for each of the five F3-Columns can be taken as 16 sq. ft., with the size of length
and breadth equal to 4’0” each.

26
27
 Figure 4.1: Column Layout and Footing Plan of the multi-storey building

Figure 4.2: Column Layout and Footing Plan of the multi-storey building (Plinth beam )

IV PLINTH BEAM

Plinth beam is a reinforced concrete beam constructed between the wall and its foundation.
Plinth beam is provided to prevent the extension or propagation of cracks from the

28
foundation into the wall above when the foundation suffers from settlement. Plinth beams
distributes the load of the wall over the foundation evenly.

Applications of Plinth Beam

1 It is mandatory to provide plinth beam in areas that prone to earthquake.

2 Construction of plinth beam above the natural ground is another application of this type of
beam.

Fig.4.3: Plinth beam

V. Columns
1. Introduction

In a building, columns play extremely significant role. Columns are the vertical support members
to which the other elements such as beams, slabs and walls are rigidly connected. Failure of the
column can lead to the collapse of the entire structure. In a framed structure, where the columns are
rigidly connected to other structural elements, besides the direct loads large bending moments are
imposed on the columns. Reinforced columns are reinforced with the stresses besides sharing the
compressive forces with the concrete. Any bending moment taking place due to the accidental
eccentricity of load on the column can be counter-balanced by providing adequate reinforcement.
The columns can be reinforced with longitudinal bards and closely wound spiral reinforcement
round the vertical bars. The spiral being wound closely has a confining effect on concrete within it.
It is brought in tension and has got the ability to check the expanding tendency of concrete under
loading (Krishna & Jain, 1977). The load bearing capacity of a column is given by the expression, .

29
Here, and represent the working stresses in concrete and steel. The stress allowed in steel is about
1.5 to 2 times the value of m

Stress in concrete :Bending Stress = M/(S)

Stress in steel :
It has been observed that when the column is gradually loaded, the stresses in steel and concrete
will be in the proportion of their modulus of elasticity as long as the stresses are within the elastic
limits. The ultimate load carrying capacity of a column is given by the factor ( ), where represents
the yield point compressive stress in steel, is the ultimate compressive strength of concrete cubes
and is a factor less than unity

2. Design of columns

Step 1: Geometrical properties of column (Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, 2000)

Step 2: Slenderness ratio (Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, 2000)

Step 3: Evaluate the strength of column (Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, 2000)

Step 4: Calculation of longitudinal reinforcement (Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice,

2000)

Step 5: Calculation of transverse reinforcement (Krishna & Jain, 1977) Pitch of the lateral ties can
be any one of the following de
pending upon the conditions,
• Least dimension of the column
• 16 times the diameter of the longitudinal bar
• 48 times the diameter of the lateral ties
Pitch of the spiral can be taken as 1/6th of the core diameter or smaller than or equal to 75mm,
whichever holds a lesser value

30
3. Final Proposal

The building comprises of four floors but follows the same plan at all the levels. The lowest floor
has been allotted for parking of two wheelers and four wheelers. The land is covered by alluvial soil
and hence it is favorable for construction. Furthermore, no harmful chemical or mineral is found in
any significant number. The ground water conditions have also been found to be satisfactory.
Therefore, no pre-processing of the ground is required prior to the construction. The type of
foundation selected for the building is the shallow foundation and all the members are designed
according to the limit state design method. The collapse conditions as well as the serviceability
requirements are significant aspects of the limit state design. Limit state design is an empirical
method that takes into account the probabilities of collapse load and the possibility of reduction in
building strength with increased load. The design of the building follows a simple rectangular form
and it is a framed structure. The total load considered for design purposes consists of the self
weight of the structure i.e. the dead load and the superimposed loads comprising of the live load,
wind load, seismic loads etc. The load on the topmost floor is transferred to the floor beneath it
through beams onto the columns. This load gets continuously transferred to the preceding floors
and finally the columns transfer the total load to the footing. Ultimately, the entire load is
transmitted to the soil by the footings. However, equal loads at different point of the structure can
cause differential settlement of the soil. This isturn can prove to be the footing is for the durability
of the structure. Thus, the designing has been carried out in a manner such that the safety
parameters are appropriately calculated and incorporated.

31
 CHAPTER 5

SCOPE AND FUTURE WORK

I SCOPE

A great deal of experimental research has been conducted and reported in the literature to improve
the understanding of the general behaviour of concrete footing composite slab, beam and column.
An essential component of composite beam is shear connection between the ground and concrete or
footing. This connection is provided by the coulumns and the plinth beams , which allow the
transfer offorces in the concrete to columns and vice-versa and also resist vertical uplift force at the
concrete interface. A concrete composite column is comprising of either a concrete encased hot-
rolled steel section or a concrete filled tubular section of hot-rolled steel and is generally used as a
load bearing member in a composite framed structure. With the use of composite column along
with composite decking and composite beams, it is possible to erect high-rise structure in an
extremely efficient manner.

Complications in the analysis and design of composite structural elements have led numerous
researchers to develop simplified methods so as to eliminate a number of large scale tests needed
for the design. In the present work also, where possible, a simplified approach was proposed for the
design of composite slabs, beams and columns. The calculation ofthe limit state of different types
of composite structural elements was considered. Based on the proposed approach, programs were
developed .

II CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of houses in india are apparently performing as expected. Nonetheless, an
anomalous majority number of homeowners have reported slight to severe foundation-related

32
damage. The majority of houses are located north regions and within lacustrine soils. Lateral
pressures and/or settlement are the principal causes of foundation damage. No single causative
factor accounts for the variety of damages we observed. Expansive soils, compressible substrata,
post-construction hydrologic modification, marginally effective foundation design, poor
construction, and inadequate observation/documentation are all potential contributing factors at
most sites. Risks associated with building on expansive soils (and bedrock) have been well known
for decades in such type of soils.

• We can conclude that there is difference between the theoretical and practical work done. As
the scope of understanding will be much more when practical work is done. As we get more
knowledge in such a situation where we have great experience doing the practical work.

• As per my training I have concluded that our project site is beside the railway track, so here
the challenge that the building has to bear the vibrations which are coming from the tracks.
For that they used high strength of steel with maximum diameters and higher mix of
concrete.

• Construction is a long and difficult process. The design and construction of residential
structures requires the efforts of many specialists.

• Architects have to be good artists and good scientists when they design a building. The
building must be pleasant to look at, pleasant to work in and strong enough to be safe from
most natural disaster.

• Trying to do all these things at the same time is part of the challenge and excitement being
an architect.

• The site of our project id beside the railway track, so here the challenge is to bear the
vibrations from the tracks. That’s why they used high strength of steel with maximum
diameters and higher mix of concrete.
•
Durability of building depends mainly on proper construction process and proper material
use.

33