International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-018-0211-3

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Numerical method for analysis and design of isolated square footing

under concentric loading
Sushilkumar B. Magade1 · Ramakant K. Ingle1

Received: 4 October 2018 / Accepted: 19 November 2018 / Published online: 27 November 2018
© The Author(s) 2018

Abstract
Footing is an important part of a structure, because its repair is extremely difficult and cumbersome. Therefore, all structural
parameters should be carefully considered when designing a footing. An isolated footing needs sufficient depth, when con-
sidering the fixed base assumption. Extensive research has previously been conducted to define and formalize the depth of a
rigid footing, i.e., the depth required, such that footing behaves as a rigid. Alternatively, working stress method (WSM) and
limit state method (LSM) provide a lower depth for low subgrades and a higher depth for high subgrades than that required
by rigid condition if a unit width footing is considered for the design. This paper presents a simple approach for calculating
the depth to meet the rigid condition under static loading. The proposed calculation method produced a better rigidity than
the existing approaches and it correlated well to the finite-element method (FEM) for low subgrades. The reinforcement
distribution is function of the bending moment (BM). Steel is uniformly embedded throughout the length or width of con-
ventional footing methods, but this is inappropriate, because the bending moment is not uniform along the length or width
of the footing. This paper proposes solutions to this by redefining the placement of steel in the central zone of the footing.
The effective zone for reinforcement was based on the FEM results. This simple procedure was developed for calculating
the maximum moment using the Diagonal Strip Method (DSM). DSM is a substitute for FEM, and it has been shown to
correlate well. The BM at central zone as well as at the edges can be calculated to define the spacing of the reinforcements.

Keywords Finite-element method · Diagonal strip method · Rigidity · Static concentric load · Rigid depth

Abbreviations
Introduction
ACI American Concrete Institute
BM Bending moment (kNm)
Typically, spread footings are provided for individual col-
DSM Diagonal strip method
umns and designed for the loads supported by the column.
Ec Modulus of elasticity of the concrete (kN/m2)
The key factor for footing design is soil pressure, which may
Es Modulus of elasticity of the soil (kN/m2)
be linear, parabolic, or uniform (Fig. 1). Linear distribution
FEM Finite-element method
is used for dense elastic soils with low plasticity, and para-
FS Factor of safety
bolic distribution is used for dense sands and clay, while
Kr Relative stiffness factor
uniform distribution is used for dense soils with limited
Ks Subgrade reaction (kN/m2)
plasticity or elastoplastic behavior (Rodriguez-Gutierrez and
Aristizabal-Ochoa 2012). The ultimate bearing capacity of
footings can be substantially increased by soil confinement
under axial load (Prasad and Singh 2011). Uniform pressure
is commonly assumed as the ideal condition for rigid depth.
When the subgrade reaction is maximum at the center and a
* Sushilkumar B. Magade minimum at the corners, then it is considered to be a flexible
[email protected]
foundation, but, when the reaction force is uniform, then it is
Ramakant K. Ingle considered a perfectly rigid foundation. The actual stress dis-
[email protected]
tribution depends on the rigidity of the footing and type of
1
Department of Applied Mechanics, VNIT Nagpur, Nagpur, soil. For cohesion-less soils and sand, the pressure distribu-
India tion depends on the depth of embedment of the foundation.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
10 International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

Fig. 1  Pressure distribution for

different soils

Cohesion less soil Cohesive or clayey soil Uniform Pressure

or sandy soil (Assumed condition)

The pressure is usually higher in the middle (Al-Shayea and Woinowsky-Krieger (1959) showed the distribution of the
Zeedan 2012). Footing design by the conventional method bending moment along the midline of a footing for u/a = 0.1
resulted in a semi-rigid foundation (Farouk and Farouk and u/a = 0.2 (refer to Fig. 2c). The equation for maximum
2014a, b). Thus, the footing has a higher subgrade reaction bending moment is:
concentration at the edge and lower at center. Pressure dis-
a
( )
tribution of soil is a function of the settlement. By increas- Mx = My = 0.1034log + 0.020 P, (1)
u
ing the number layers of rubber–sand mixture (RSM), the
bearing capacity of the foundation can be increased, and where Mx and My are moments along the x- and y-directions,
the footing settlement reduced (Moghaddas Tafreshi et al. u and a are the size of the column and the footing, respec-
2016). The settlement reduction factor decreases with the tively, and P is the axial load on the column. This equation is
increase in applied load (Al-Aghbari and Dutta 2008). Depth valid for ν = 0.3 (Poisson’s ratio), but nature of the bending
of footing is considered to be rigid when the settlement is moment remains the same for any value of Poisson’s ratio.
uniform or when the settlement at each point is the same From Fig. 2c, it can be seen that the bending moment is
along the footing. The foundation may be considered flexible highest at the center and reduces towards the edge.
when the settlement is higher at the center than at the corner. The total moment can be calculated by Reynolds et al.’s
The use of a non-coaxial soil model significantly increases (2007) method. Equations used were for concentric and
the settlement of footings. However, it does not affect the eccentric footing. Figure 3 shows the formulae for an iso-
ultimate bearing capacities (Yang and Yu 2006). lated pad footing using Reynolds’s handbook method for
Within the footing, stresses are developed due to different square and rectangular sections. The total moment calcu-
loading conditions, boundary conditions, and geometry. The lated using the conventional method was similar to that using
forces acting on the footing are axial, shear, moment, and Reynolds et al. (2007). To verify the validity of equations,
torsion. When the footing is loaded concentrically, the dif- rectangular eccentric footing is converted to concentric
ferent modes of failure are bearing, flexure, and one-way and square footing by taking f1 = f2 and b = L. For this condi-
two-way shear. The effect of the stress level on the bearing tion, the moments in both directions (Mx and My) should be
capacity of the foundation, which is related to the foundation equal and should match the square footing moment (Mx).
size, is very important (Jahanandish et al. 2012). ECP203 Twenty cases were used for validation, as presented in
(2011), ACI318 (2008), and EC2 (2004) code provisions Table 1. The moments of the converted footing were exactly
underestimate the structural failure loads of isolated column the same as the rectangular footing and as the conventional
footings, while BS 8110.1 (1997) overestimates the failure method. Therefore, the conventional method or the equa-
loads for punching shear (Abdrabbo et al. 2016). Maximum tions in Reynolds’s handbook can be used to calculate the
bending moment (BM) is also an important factor for the total moment. Figure 4 shows the validation of total moment
calculation of footing depth. In the conventional method, with Reynolds’s handbook equation for various subgrades.
the depth calculated for maximum BM is always less than For tension, if l c > 0.75(C + 3d), then two-thirds of
that for one-way shear and punching shear, so it is neglected. the reinforcement should be concentrated within a zone
Farouk and Farouk (2014a, b) recommended increasing the that extends on either side for a distance no more than
BM by 25% or increasing the reinforcement by 25% when 1.5d from the face of the column (Reynolds et al. 2007),
calculating footing depth, due to an increasing edge stresses, where C is the column width, lc is the distance from the
which leads to an increase in the maximum moment. center of a column to the edge of the pad, and d is depth.
Bending moment distribution is not uniform along Seward (2014) recommended that the reinforcement for
the length or width of a footing. Timoshenko and small pads can be uniformly distributed throughout the

13
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20 11

Fig. 2  a Plan of isolated foot- a

ing. b Section along middle
line. c Bending moment distri-
P
bution along middle line

u
a
u

P/a2

a Plan of isolated footing b Sectionalong middle line

a/2 a/2

0.258P
0.186P
a/2
(Mx)y=0
(Mx)y=0

0.1a
x

0.2a
0.258P

0.186P
a/2

(Mx)x=0
(Mx)x=0

Moments Moments
for for
u/a=0.1 y u/a=0.2

c Bending moment distribution along middle line

Fig. 3  Bending moment for iso- F FV

lated pad footing by Reynolds’s

handbook
Fb

h h

f
f1
f2

a
X
Y

X X
X X
b C
L C
C
C

L
X
Bending moment at X-X and Y-Y:
L

f = F/L 2 Mx = + ( )( − )
Bending moment at X-X, MY =
( )
( )
Mx =

13
12 International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

Table 1  Number of cases considered for study for validation

Case no. Footing size in m % Reinforcement Axial load on column Axial load on column Column size (m) Ks (kN/m3)
in column (kN) WSM (kN) LSM

1 2×2 0.8 650 725 0.3 × 0.3 20,000

2 2.2 × 2.2 1 700 775 0.3 × 0.3
3 2.2 × 2.2 1.25 750 800 0.3 × 0.3
4 2.3 × 2.3 1.5 800 850 0.3 × 0.3
5 2.3 × 2.3 2 900 925 0.3 × 0.3
6 2.6 × 2.6 0.8 1200 1300 0.4 × 0.4
7 2.8 × 2.8 1 1300 1350 0.4 × 0.4
8 2.8 × 2.8 1.25 1350 1425 0.4 × 0.4
9 3×3 1.5 1400 1500 0.4 × 0.4
10 3×3 2 1550 1650 0.4 × 0.4
11 3.3 × 3.3 0.8 1900 2025 0.5 × 0.5
12 3.5 × 3.5 1 2000 2125 0.5 × 0.5
13 3.5 × 3.5 1.25 2100 2225 0.5 × 0.5
14 3.5 × 3.5 1.5 2200 2350 0.5 × 0.5
15 3.8 × 3.8 2 2450 2575 0.5 × 0.5
16 4×4 0.8 2700 2925 0.6 × 0.6
17 4.2 × 4.2 1 2850 3050 0.6 × 0.6
18 4.2 × 4.2 1.25 3000 3200 0.6 × 0.6
19 4.4 × 4.4 1.5 3200 3375 0.6 × 0.6
20 4.5 × 4.5 2 3550 3700 0.6 × 0.6

width of the foundation. However, if the width of the pad Different approaches for rigid depth
(L) exceeds 1.5(C + 3d), two-thirds of the reinforcement
should be placed in a middle band at a width of (C + 3d). The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 336-2R
IS 456 (2000) recommended a central band equal to the (1988) suggested the use of a relative stiffness factor (Kr)
width of the footing, placed along the length of the foot- developed by Meyerhof (1953) to determine whether the
ing with the portion of the reinforcement determined in footing should be considered flexible or rigid; the proposed
accordance with the equation below. This is limited to equation is:
rectangular footing only:
Ec Ib
Reinforcement in central band width 2
Kr = , (3)
Es B3
= , (2)
Total reinforcement in short direction 𝛽 + 1
where Ec modulus of elasticity of the structure (or concrete),
where β is the ratio of the long side to the short side of the Es modulus of elasticity of the soil, B width of the founda-
footing. tion, and Ib moment of inertia of the structure per unit length
Finite-element method (FEM) has become a powerful at right angles to B. The ACI Committee 336-2R, 1988 rec-
tool for the numerical simulation of engineering prob- ommended that, if Kr is equal to or greater than 0.5, then the
lems. FEM, therefore, is considered a benchmark, as footing is considered rigid. If the relative stiffness factor is
its solutions are very accurate. The structural analysis found to be less than 0.5, then footing should be designed
program (SAP2000 2010) was used as an FEM tool for as a flexible member. Vesic (1961) gives the relationship
analysis purposes and the results of the proposed method between the modulus of elasticity and the subgrade reaction
are compared with FEM. In the present work, the diago- of the soil as follows:
nal strip method (DSM) was developed, which produces
BM similar to finite-element method (FEM) results. This Es
method provides reinforcement for a calculated bending k= ( ), (4)
B 1 − 𝜇s
moment without any increase in the percentage of steel.

13
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20 13

1600 800
Conventional method Conventional method
1400 Raynold's method Mx (square) Raynold's method Mx (square)
700
Raynold's method Mx(converted square) Raynold's method Mx(converted square)
1200 600
T o ta l m o m e n t ( k N m )
Raynold's method M (converted square) Raynold's method Mx(converted square)

T o ta l m o m e n t ( k N m )
Y
1000 500

800 400

600 300

400 200

200 100

0
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
Case Number
Case Number
a For Ks = 20000kN/m3
b For Ks = 50000kN/m3
220
500
Conventional method 200
Conventional method
Raynold's method Mx(square)
180 Raynold's method M (square)
x
400 Raynold's method Mx(converted square)
Raynold's method M (converted square)
Raynold's method MY(converted square) 160 x
T o ta l m o m e n t ( k N m ) Raynold's method M (converted square)
Total moment (kNm)

Y
140
300
120

100
200
80

60
100
40

20
0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Case Number Case Number

c For Ks = 100000kN/m3 d For Ks = 200000kN/m3

Fig. 4  Validation of total moment by Reynolds’s handbook method

where μs Poisson’s ratio of the soil. However, without tri- where t uniform thickness of the footing, b column dimen-
axial tests, the elasticity of the soil is difficult to determine. sion along the footing dimension B, L footing dimension per-
Instead, Vesic suggested using a relative stiffness factor Kr pendicular to B, and l column dimension along the footing
with the same rigidity condition, but independent of Es, dimension L.
which is given by the following: The coefficient of rigidity suggested by DIN 4018
EIb (1981) is given by the following equation:
Kr = . (5) ( )3 ( E )
ks (1 − 𝜇s2 )B4 t c
Kr = × . (7)
L 12Es
Tabsh and Raouf Al-Shawa (2005) modified the stiffness
factor Kr by considering all the dimensions of footing and col- Shehata (2016) conducted a study using Eq. (7) and
umn cross section. If Kr is less than or equal to 1, it can be recommended that, if the factor was less than or equal to
considered flexible; otherwise, it will be considered rigid. The 0.05, the footing is considered flexible, and otherwise, it
equation developed is: is considered rigid.
The WSM and LSM for the analysis and design of
Et3 footings were described in IS 456 (2000). For both the
Kr = ( , (6) approaches, the depth is calculated for one-way shear,
k 1 − 𝜇2 (B − b)2 (L − l)2
)
which is at distance d (effective depth of footing) from the

13
14 International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

face of column, for two-way or punching shear, which is block or contained very little reinforcement. The minimum
at d/2 from the face of column and for maximum bending reinforcement of 0.12% area must be specified if the calcu-
moment at column face. WSM is a traditional method used lated reinforcement is less than this minimum reinforcement
for design, which produces higher depths when compared (IS 456 2000). There are other conditions that give a rigid
to LSM. It was observed that both depths did not fulfill depth close to the FEM results. Some conditions are suitable
the rigidity requirement of the footing for all the types of for high subgrade but fail in lower subgrade, or vice versa.
soil or subgrade. Most importantly, the criteria enlisted for each depth
Depth must also be sufficient to accommodate the devel- calculation must be satisfied for correct results. Table 2
opment length of a column bar in compression, i.e., Ldc as shows the rigid depth results using the existing approaches
given in special publication (SP) 16 (1978) and special pub- for 20,000 kN/m3 subgrade. The differences between the
lication (SP) 34 (1987) of Indian standards. The develop- approaches were considerable, so there is a need to deter-
ment length of the bars must be sufficient to transfer com- mine which methods provide the correct rigid depth for dif-
pression to the supporting member, as per clause 12.3 of ferent subgrades. The present study reports the selection of
ACI 318 (2008). If the computed length is more than the conditions depending upon the subgrade to obtain the cor-
distance available from the top of the footing to the tensile rect depth to which the footing acts as a rigid.
steel top, then the available solutions are to: (1) use a larger
number of smaller bars in a column, (2) increase depth, and
(3) construct a pedestal on top of the footing to provide extra Concept of modeling
length (McCormac and Brown 2015).
The depth of the base should be equal to or greater than Column and pad of the footing were modeled as area (shell)
0.5a, where a is the distance from the face of column to the elements, having six degrees of freedom at each node, as
edge of the base (Reynolds et al. 2007). Depth calculated specified by Vishwakarma and Ingle (2017) for modeling a
using this condition was close to depth calculated by the concrete slab. Load transferred from the column was treated
finite-element analysis for low subgrade or soft soil. How- as a concentrated load. However, the load is uniformly dis-
ever, this calculation was not valid for high subgrade or hard tributed (UDL) over the cross-sectional area of the column
soil. The depth was considered rigid when it acted as solid in the mathematical model. In finite-element modeling, the

Table 2  Rigid depths for Ks = 20,000 kN/m3

Case no. Length/width Width of Rigid depth (m) Rigid depth (m) Rigid depth (m) Rigid depth Rigid depth Rigid depth (m)
of footing (m) column by Meyerhof/ACI by Tabsh and by Hany Farouk/ (m) by WSM (m) by LSM by Reynolds’s
(m) 336-2R (when Al-shawa (when DIN 4018 (when Handbook
Kr = 0.5) Kr = 1) Kr = 0.05)

1 2 0.3 0.330 0.184 0.194 0.400 0.360 0.425

2 2.2 0.3 0.363 0.214 0.220 0.400 0.380 0.475
3 2.2 0.3 0.363 0.214 0.219 0.450 0.400 0.475
4 2.3 0.3 0.380 0.229 0.233 0.500 0.450 0.500
5 2.3 0.3 0.380 0.229 0.233 0.500 0.450 0.500
6 2.6 0.4 0.429 0.260 0.274 0.500 0.470 0.550
7 2.8 0.4 0.463 0.292 0.303 0.550 0.500 0.600
8 2.8 0.4 0.463 0.292 0.303 0.550 0.500 0.600
9 3 0.4 0.495 0.325 0.332 0.600 0.520 0.650
10 3 0.4 0.495 0.325 0.332 0.600 0.550 0.650
11 3.3 0.5 0.545 0.359 0.377 0.650 0.580 0.700
12 3.5 0.5 0.578 0.393 0.407 0.660 0.600 0.750
13 3.5 0.5 0.578 0.393 0.408 0.700 0.620 0.750
14 3.5 0.5 0.578 0.393 0.408 0.750 0.640 0.750
15 3.8 0.5 0.628 0.446 0.455 0.750 0.670 0.825
16 4 0.6 0.660 0.465 0.488 0.750 0.680 0.850
17 4.2 0.6 0.693 0.501 0.521 0.800 0.700 0.900
18 4.2 0.6 0.693 0.501 0.521 0.800 0.720 0.900
19 4.4 0.6 0.727 0.539 0.554 0.850 0.750 0.950
20 4.5 0.6 0.743 0.558 0.572 0.900 0.800 0.975

13
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20 15

plate (shell) is discretised and the soil was modeled as a spring New approach for rigid depth calculation
with equivalent stiffnesses. Spring stiffnesses were calculated
from the modulus of subgrade reaction of soil. FEMA 356 The differences seen in the maximum bending moment
(2000, Fig. 4.4) was used for the calculations of soil stiffness. results between the conventional method (unit width) and
However, this was only applicable for a single node to per- FEM were significant. The design moments found with
form soil–structure interaction. In this mathematical model, FEM are not uniform throughout the length or width of foot-
soil springs were used with value equal to the contributing area ing. However, addition of these moments (moment at each
multiplied by the modulus of soil reaction, i.e., area spring. To node) found to be approximately equals to the total moment
perform finite-element analysis, both plate (shell) elements obtained with the conventional method. Hence, designing a
were discretised and supported on springs of equivalent stiff- footing with the conventional method produced less accu-
ness for various subgrades. Figure 5 shows a three-dimensional rate moments. Figure 6 shows the differences for various
view of column loading on a footing. subgrades.
The nature of bending moment simulated using FEM
Idealization of the model is similar to Timoshenko’s observation, i.e., the bending
moment at any section is not uniform. Figure 7 shows vari-
In the present study, a square footing and column were con- ation of maximum BM for axial concentric load along the
sidered. M25 grade concrete and Fe415 steel were used with width (or length). The difference in the maximum bending
a Poisson’s ratio of 0.15 for concrete. The size of the footing moment between the conventional method and FEM was
was evaluated using load and bearing pressure. Column cross- significant. Therefore, ignoring the BM when calculating
sectional dimensions included 0.3 m × 0.3 m, 0.4 m × 0.4 m, depth is not appropriate. BM calculation by the conventional
0.5 m × 0.5 m, and 0.6 m × 0.6 m. The load carrying capacity method (i.e., unit width method) led to inaccurate design,
of the column for percentage reinforcements of 0.8, 1, 1.25, such that total moment should be considered for depth calcu-
1.5, and 2% were considered when axially loaded. With these lations. Total moment can be calculated by the conventional
parameters, 20 cases were developed and analyzed to deter- method or Reynolds et al. (2007) method.
mine the rigid depth. These cases were considered for low-rise General equation for design of RCC as per Krishna and
and medium-rise buildings, where isolated square footings are Jain (1959) is as follows:
preferred. Values of the safe bearing capacity of soil included
200 kN/m2, 500 kN/m2, 1000 kN/m2, and 2000 kN/m2, which M = KBd2 , (9)
indicated variation of subgrades from low to high. The modu- where M total moment (kNm), K moment factor depend on
lus of the subgrade was calculated as suggested by Bowles Fck and Fy, B width of footing (m), and d effective depth of
(1988): footing (m).
The thickness of footing calculated with this method may
Ks = 40 × FS × qa , (8) be less to account the rigidity effect when compared with
3
where Ks is subgrade modulus in kN/m , FS is factor of the FEM results. As the bending moment is maximum in
safety taken as 2.5–3, and qa is allowable bearing pressure central part, consideration of full width leads to an incor-
in kN/m2. rect depth. To get the correct rigid depth, the central part of
width should be considered with maximum moment. The
number of cases has been analyzed with EFM to determine
the effective central zone and is given by the following:
L
Central zone = + b,
5
where L length or width of footing; b depth or width of
column.
The depth shall be calculated for total moment by con-
sidering effective width instead of full width of footing
to get actual rigid depth. The depth calculated with this
approach is safe to accommodate the development length
in compression (L dc) for lower subgrade and also well
agreement with the FEM. For higher subgrade, WSM
gives greater depth but LSM, new approach and minimum
% steel approach are close to FEM. It is also observed that
Fig. 5  3D view of column loading as UDL on footing depth calculated with minimum steel approach for lower

13
16 International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

700
500 Mmax-Conventional method
600 Mmax-Conventional method Mmax- FEM
Maximum moment(kNm/m) Mmax- FEM

Maximum moment(kNm/m)
500 400

400 300

300
200
200
100
100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Case Number Case Number

a For Ks = 20000kN/m3 b For Ks = 50000kN/m3

300
400
Mmax-Conventional method Mmax-Conventional method
350 Mmax- FEM 250 Mmax- FEM

Maximum moment(kNm/m)
Maximum moment(kNm/m)

300
200
250

200 150

150
100
100
50
50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Case Number Case Number
c For Ks = 100000kN/m3
d For Ks = 200000kN/m3

Fig. 6  Moment difference between the conventional method and FEM

Fig. 7  Bending moment distri-

bution by FEM

subgrade is more conservative than any other approaches, Diagonal strip method (DSM)
so new approach should be preferred for lower subgrade.
For all subgrade, the difference in depths of WSM and The diagonal strip method is simple and based on the unit
FEM is quite large. Though WSM gives higher depth than width method. In the conventional method, the unit width
the other approaches, it should not be preferred for rigid is considered to be the horizontal direction or vertical
depth calculation. Figures 8, 9, 10, 11 shows the compari- direction. Footings are designed for loads from a column.
son for rigid depth of the existing approaches and new app When the connection between the column and the footing
roach.

13
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20 17

WSM 1.6
2.4
LSM WSM
2.2 LSM
Vesic 1.4 Vesic
Tabsh
2.0 Hany Farouk
Tabsh
1.2 Hany Farouk
1.8 FEM
FEM
Raynold's Handbook
Raynold's Handbook
1.6 New approach
R i g id D e p th ( m )

1.0

Rigid Depth(m)
New approach
Minimum % steel
Minimum %
1.4 approach
steel approach
0.8
1.2
1.0 0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4 0.2
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Case Number Case Number

For Ks = 20000kN/m3 For Ks = 50000kN/m3

2.0 2.0
WSM WSM
1.8 LSM 1.8 LSM
Vesic Vesic
Tabsh Tabsh
1.6 1.6
Hany Farouk Hany Farouk
FEM FEM
1.4 Raynold's Handbook 1.4 Raynold's Handbook
Rigid Depth(m)

R ig id D e p th (m )
New approach New approach
1.2 Minimum % steel 1.2 Minimum % steel
approach approach
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Case Number
Case Number
For Ks = 100000kN/m3 For Ks = 200000kN/m3

Fig. 8  Rigid depth comparison

vertical distance from the column face is inappropriate.

However, using the diagonal distance in the moment cal-
h
gt
en
ll

culation gives the maximum moment at the column face.

na
go
ia

The diagonal distance to be considered is shown in Fig. 9.

D

Now, bending moment at the face of column can be

Horizontal length
Column B
calculated by the following equation:
pl2
Bending moment = , (10)
2
where p bearing pressure in kN/m2, l diagonal length.
Bending moments calculated with the DSM were in
L
agreement with FEM, proving that this method is an alter-
native for FEM. Figure 10 shows the comparison between
Fig. 9  Diagonal distance
DSM and FEM for maximum bending moment. Bending
moment is maximum at the center and reduces towards
is rigid, the stresses develop at each point of the footing. the edge of the footing. The BM in the central zone (Mavg
The maximum distance from the face of the column is Fig. 7) is two-thirds the maximum BM, and the BM at the
the diagonal distance, so using the horizontal distance or

13
18 International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

600
700

Mmax-FEM 500 Mmax-FEM

600
Mmax-DSM Mmax-DSM

500 400
Mmax(kNm/m)

Mmax(kNm/m)
400
300

300
200
200

100
100

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Case Number Case Number

a For Ks = 20000kN/m3 b For Ks = 50000kN/m3

450 300
Mmax-FEM
400 Mmax-FEM Mmax-DSM
Mmax-DSM 250
350

Mmax(kNm/m)
300
200
Mmax(kNm/m)

250

150
200

150
100
100

50 50

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Case Number Case Number
c For Ks = 100000kN/m3 d For Ks = 200000kN/m3

Fig. 10  Comparison of maximum BM for DSM and FEM

edge (M min Fig. 7) is one-third the maximum BM. The

L B
maximum BM value can be calculated using DSM. Central zone = +b or + b, (11)
5 5
where L = B = length or width of footing and b width or depth
Proposed approach for distribution of column.
of reinforcement The bending moment is more at the central zone, i.e.,
L/5 + b, and the remaining zone equals to L−(L/5 + b), is as
The proposed method for distribution of reinforcement by shown in Fig. 11. The central zone covers 35–40% part of total
Reynolds et al. (2007) and Seward (2014) was shown not to be length or width of footing. In addition, the excessive moment
valid for all the cases, and the reinforcement placement recom- in this zone is found to be 40% more than average bending
mended by IS456 (2000) was not applicable to a square footing. moment. Hence, 40% reinforcement of total reinforcement
On the other hand, when the reinforcement sizing is inconsist- should be provided in this central zone.
ent with the importance of the structures, it can cause serious
damage (Sadaoui and Bahar 2017). Providing uniform rein-
forcement throughout the width was not appropriate, because Conclusions
the BM varies across the width of the footing. At the central
zone of the footing, the BM is a maximum, and FEM produces The paper presented a simple approach to calculate the depth
larger moments than the conventional method. The distribution of and the placement of steel reinforcement for an isolated
of reinforcements must be as per the BM distribution. Figure 11 square footing under concentric loading. Observations were
shows the details of the reinforcement for maximum BM, and limited to square footings and columns with concentric load-
the central zone can be calculated using the following: ing. The working stress method (WSM) and the limit state

13
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20 19

requirement. As per the proposed method, 40% of the total

reinforcement must be provided at the central zone, because
b
the BM distribution is highest here, and the remaining 60%
should be placed in the remaining zones.

Compliance with ethical standards

(L/5)+b
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.

B-((B/5)+b)/2
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea-
tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat​iveco​
mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu-
B tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate
(B/5)+b
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
B-((B/5)+b)/2
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References
L-((L/5)+b)/2 (L/5)+b L-((L/5)+b)/2
Abdrabbo F, Mahmoud ZI, Ebrahim M (2016) Structural design of
L
isolated column footings. Alex Eng J 55(3):2665–2678
ACI 336 (1988) Suggested design procedures for combined footings
Fig. 11  Proposed placement of reinforcement in isolated square foot- and mats, ACI 336.2R-88. American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ing ington Hills
ACI Committee, American Concrete Institute, & International Organi-
zation for Standardization (2008) Building code requirements for
method (LSM) failed to fulfill the rigidity requirements for a structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American
Concrete Institute
footing in the absence of sufficient width. The proposed pro-
Al-Aghbari MY, Dutta RK (2008) Performance of square footing
cedure for calculating depth can be used in any case, because with structural skirt resting on sand. Geomech Geoeng Int J
it gives a more conservative depth for lower subgrades and 3(4):271–277
smaller depth for higher subgrades when compared to the Al-Shayea N, Zeedan H (2012) A new approach for estimating thick-
ness of mat foundations under certain conditions. Arab J Sci Eng
existing methods. Depth calculated using the new approach
37(2):277–290
agreed well with finite-element method (FEM), and also it Bowles JE (1988) Foundation analysis and design, 3rd edn. McGraw-
satisfied the criterion for development length in compres- Hill international book company, Tokyo
sion (Ldc) for lower subgrades. For higher subgrades, depth British Standards Institution Eurocode 2 (2004) Design of concrete
structures: part 1-1, General Rules and Rules for Buildings British
should be calculated using the maximum of the LSM, the
Standards Institution
new approach, or minimum reinforcement approach. Reyn- BS8110 (1997) Code of practice for design and construction Part 1.
olds’s handbook approach should not be used for higher sub- British Standards Institution, London
grades, because it results in a lower depth than FEM. For Computers and Structures (2010) CSI Analysis Reference Man-
ual for SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE and CSiBridge. ISO No.
the calculation of rigid depth, the total moment should be GEN062708M1 Rev.4, Berkeley, California, USA
considered, which could be calculated by the conventional DIN4018 (1981) Beiblatt 1:1981-05 Baugrund “Berechnung der Sohl-
method or by Reynolds’s handbook equations. druckverteilung unter Flächengründungen”, Erläuterungen und
Diagonal strip method (DSM) is not only a simple Berechnungsbeispiele, Beuth, Berlin
ECP-Egyptian Code of Practice-203 (2011) Egyptian Code of Prac-
approach, but it is also an effective alternative to FEM for tice no-203 for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures,
determining maximum bending moment (BM). The bend- Research Center for Housing and Construction, Ministry of Hous-
ing moments calculated with this method are nearly iden- ing, Utilities and Urban Planning, Cairo, Egypt
tical to the FEM results. Bending moments at the central Farouk H, Farouk M (2014a) Soil, foundation, and superstructure inter-
action for plane two-bay frames. Int J Geomech 16(1):B4014003
zone and at the edge can be calculated using the bending Farouk H, Farouk M (2014b) Effect of soil type on contact stress. New
moments of the DSM. Tensile reinforcement depends on Front Geotechn Eng 2014:57–66
the BM distribution. The proposed procedure of reinforce- FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic reha-
ment distribution across the section of the footing is better bilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC
than the conventional methods, which use uniform spacing
of reinforcement, because this satisfies the BM distribution

13
20 International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (2019) 11:9–20

IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice. Bereau Shehata HF, El-Zahaby KM (2016) New trends in foundation design
of Indian Standards, New Delhi using the finite element analysis method. Geo-China 1:1–8
Jahanandish M, Veiskarami M, Ghahramani A (2012) Effect of foun- SP16 (1978) Design aids for reinforcement concrete to IS: 456-1978.
dation size and roughness on the bearing capacity factor, N γ, by Bereau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
stress level-based ZEL method. Arab J Sci Eng 37(7):1817–1831 SP34 (1987) Handbook on concrete reinforcement and detailing.
Krishna JP, Jain OP (1959) Plain and reinforced concrete (8th Edition). Bereau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
Nem Chand and Bros, Roorkee Tabsh SW, Raouf Al-Shawa A (2005) Effect of spread footing flex-
McCormac JC, Brown RH (2015) Design of reinforced concrete. ibility on structural response. Pract Period Struct Design Constr
Wiley, Hoboken 10(2):109–114
Meyerhof GT (1953) The bearing capacity of foundations under Timoshenko S, Woinowsky-Krieger S (1959) Theory of Plates and
eccentric and inclined loads. In Proc. of 3rd ICSMFE, vol 1, pp Shells, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill book Company, Singapore
440–445 Vesic AB (1961) Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solid. J
Moghaddas Tafreshi SN, Joz Darabi N, Tavakoli Mehrjardi G, Dawson Eng Mech Div 87(2):35–54
A (2016) Experimental and numerical investigation of footing Vishwakarma RJ, Ingle RK (2017) Simplified approach for the evalu-
behaviour on multi-layered rubber-reinforced soil. Eur J Environ ation of critical stresses in concrete pavement. Struct Eng Mech
Civ Eng 2016:1–24 61(3):389–396
Prasad A, Singh V (2011) Behavior of confined square and rectan- Yang Y, Yu HS (2006) Application of a non-coaxial soil model in shal-
gular footings under eccentric-inclined load. Int J Geotech Eng low foundations. Geomech Geoeng Int J 1(2):139–150
5(2):211–221
Reynolds CE, Steedman JC, Threlfall AJ (2007) Reinforced concrete Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
designer’s handbook, 11th edn. CRC Press, London jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rodriguez-Gutierrez JA, Aristizabal-Ochoa JD (2012) Rigid spread
footings resting on soil subjected to axial load and biaxial bend-
ing I: simplified analytical method. Int J Geomech 13(2):109–119
Sadaoui O, Bahar R (2017) Field measurements and back calculations
of settlements of structures founded on improved soft soils by
stone columns. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2017:1–27
Seward D (2014) Understanding structures, analysis, materials design.
The Macmillan Press Ltd, London

13