Indian Standard IS:1080-1985

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS IN SOILS (OTHER
THAN RAFT, RING AND SHELL )
( Second Revision )
First Reprint DECEMBER 1988
UDC 624.151.5.04:006.76

AJAY GHOSH
Associate Prof. works
7420041131
 2. TERMINOLOGY

2.2.5 of IS 6403: Shallow Foundation: - A foundation

whose width is greater than It’s depth. The shearing
resistance of the soil in the sides of the foundation is
generally neglected.
Types of foundation

 Foundations are broadly classified under

two heads: shallow foundation and deep
foundation.
 According to Terzaghi for a shallow foundation D
≤ B.
However
 in practice, it is widely accepted that the above
criterion may be modified as D≤2B for shallow
foundations.
TYPES OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
 3.1 Shallow Foundations - These cover such types of
foundations in which load transference is primarily through
shear resistance of the bearing strata ( the frictional resistance
of soil above bearing strata is not taken into consideration )
and are laid normally to depth of 3 m.
 3.1.1 The various types of shallow foundations are as under:
 a) Spread or pad - IS : 1080-1986:.
 b) Strip - See IS : 1080-1986
 c) Raft foundation - See IS : 2950 ( Part 1 )-1981.
 d) Ring and shell foundation --see IS : 11089-1984 and IS :
9456- 1980.
 3. GENERAL
 a) Pad or Spread - In such type of foundation, which
is constructed of masonry and/or concrete ( plain
or reinforced ) and is isolated, the loads of a
structure is transferred to the ground in such a
manner that the safe bearing pressure is not
exceeded.
 b) Strip-- Such type of foundation provides
continuous and longitudinal bearing for loads
carried by vertical elements, such as continuous
wall foundation beams or the like.
Shallow foundation
 Mat or raft foundation
 Large slab supporting number of columns
and walls under the entire structure
RING FOUNDATION

 Ring foundation is provided for tall structures like

water tank, chimney, silows etc. which have vertical
non uniform loads
4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION
IS-1080-1985

 4.1 In such type of foundations wherever

the resultant of the load deviates from
the centre line by more than l/6 of its
least dimension at the base of footing, it
should be suitably reinforced.
 4.2 For continuous wall foundations (
plain or reinforced ) adequate
reinforcement should be provided
particularly at places where there is
abrupt change in magnitude of load or
variation in ground support.
 4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION

 4.3 On sloping sites the foundation should have a

horizontal bearing and stepped and lapped at
changes of levels for a distance at least equal to
the thickness of foundation or twice the height of
step whichever is greater. The steps should not be of
greater height than thickness of the foundations.
4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION
 4.4 Ground Beams The foundation can
also have the ground beam for
transmitting the load. The ground beam
carrying a load bearing wall should be
designed to act with the wall forming a
composite beam, when both are of
reinforced concrete and structurally
connected by reinforcement. The
ground beam of reinforced concrete
structurally connected to reinforced
brick work can also be used.
 4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION
 4.5 Dimensions of Foundation
 4.5.1 The dimensions of the foundation in
plan should be such as to support loads as
given in IS : 1904-1985*. The width of the
footings shall be such that maximum stress in
the concrete or masonry is within the
permissible limits. The width of wall
foundation shall not be less than that given
by:
 B= W + 30 cm where
 B = width at base in cm, and
 W = width of supported wall in cm.
 4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION

 4.6 In the base of foundations for masonry foundation it is

preferable to
 have the steps in multiples of thickness of masonry unit.

4.7 The plan dimensions of excavation

for foundations should be wide
enough to ensure safe and efficient
working ( see IS : .7764-1966 ).
 4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION
 4.8 Unreinforced foundation may be of
concrete or masonry ( stone or brick )
provided that angular spread of load from the
pier or bed plate to the outer edge of the
ground bearing is not more than 1 vertical to a
horizontal to masonry or 1 vertical to I horizontal
for cement concrete and 1 vertical to 2/3
horizontal for lime concrete.
 The minimum thickness of the foundation of the
edge should not be less than 150 mm.
 In case the depth to transfer the load to the
ground bearing is less than the permissible
angle of spread, the foundations should be
reinforced.
 4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION

 4.9 If the bottom of a pier is to be belled so

as to increase its load carrying capacity
such bell should be at least 30 cm thick at
its edge. The sides should be sloped at an
angle of not less than 45° with the
horizontal. The least dimension should be 60
cm ( circular, square or rectangular ). The
design should allow for the vertical tilt of
the pier by 1 percent of its height.
 4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION

 4.10 If the allowable bearing capacity is

available only at a greater depth, the
foundation can be rested at a higher level for
economic considerations and the difference in
level between the base of foundation and the
depth at which the allowable bearing
capacity occurs can be filled up with either:
 (a) concrete of allowable compressive strength
not less than the allowable bearing pressure,
or
4. DESlGN CONSIDERATION
 (b) incompressible fill material, for
example, sand, gravel, etc, in which
case the width of the fill should be more
than the width of the foundation by an
extent of dispersion of load from the
base of the foundation on either side at
the rate of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal.
 4.11 The cement concrete foundation
( plain or reinforced ) should be
designed in accordance with IS : 456-
1978’ and masonry foundation in
accordance with IS : 1905-1980.
 Factors affecting choice of
foundation
 Function of the Structure – Residential, Commercial,
Bridges etc.
 Loads coming from the structure
 Subsoil conditions
 Relative cost of foundation in relation to
superstructure
Factors affecting Depth of
Shallow Foundations
 Depth of top soil or filled-up soil
 Depth of poor surface deposit such as
peat, muck, sanitary land fill
 Location of ground water table and its
seasonal variation
 Depth of poor or better underlying strata
 Depth of adjacent footing
5. CONSTRUCTION

 5.1 The cement concreting ( plain and

reinforced ) in the foundation should be
done in accordance with the provision
given in IS : 456-1978*.
 5.2 The stone masonry construction
should conform to IS : 1597 ( Parts 1 and
2 )-1967: and brick masonry construction
should conform to IS : 2212-19629.
5. CONSTRUCTION

 5.3 The lime concrete should be done in

accordance with the provisions given in
IS : 2541-197711 or IS : 5817-19701.
 5.4 Masonry should be constructed over
the base concrete after curing the base
of concrete for at least 3 days. Before
laying concrete, the bed of the
foundation pit/trench should be
thoroughly compacted by manual
Ramming.
Share failure or bearing capacity criteria

Foundation should be designed such that soil

bellow does not fail in shear
Maximum gross intensity of load that soil can
support before it fails in shear

The maximum net intensity of loading at the base of

foundation that the soil can support before it fails in
share

The maximum net intensity of loading that the soil

can safely support without the risk of failure
 The maximum gross intensity of load that
the soil can carry without failing in shear
 Settlement criterion
 Safe bearing pressure: the maximum safe intensity
of loading that can be allowed on the soil without
the settlement exceeding the permissible limit
Modes of failure

 General shear failure

 Local shear failure
 Punching shear failure
General shear failure
 Consistency chart for clay

If undrained cohesion value of clay is 50-100 kpa it is stiff clay

and shear failure is expected to be general shear failure
Consistency chart for sand

If relative density of sand is 65-85 it is dense

sand and failure is expected to be general
shear failure
 Local shear failure
 Medium or relatively loose sand/ medium or relatively
soft consistency clay
Nature of load settlement curve for
local shear failure

Failure load can be estimated approximately by

single tangent method or double tangent method
 Punching shear failure
 Very loose san/ very soft clay
Load settlement curve for punching
shear failure

Ultimate load can be approximated by double

tangent method
 Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory (1920)

 The footing is a long strip or continuous footing

resting on a deep homogeneous soil having shear
parameter C and
 Analysis is a 2 D condition
 Soil fails in general shear failure mode
 The load is vertical and concentric
 The ground surface is horizontal
 The base of footing laid at a shallow depth
 The shearing resistance of soil between the surface
and depth Df is neglected and the footing is
considered resting on surface with a surcharge
loading of at the level of footing
Terzaghi’s shear failure zones
Terzaghi’s shear failure zones
 Terzaghi’s shear failure zones

 There will be friction between soil and base of

foundation for Ø soil ( granular soil)
 Ø - soil-soil friction
 δ – soil and other material friction
 There will be cohesion between clayee soil
particles
 C - cohesion for clay-clay particle
 Ca - Adhesion for clay and other materials
 For C , phy soil there will be friction soil and
foundation and adhesion between soil and
foundation because of this phenomena zone-I will not
deform laterally outside foundation
As per terzaghi for local shear failure value of cohesion is 67% of
that in general shear failure
The effect of submergence is to reduce
undrained shear strength.

The shear strength parameters should be

determined in laboratory under saturated
condition.
Shape Factor:
Depth Factor
Inclination Factor
Bearing capacity of Granular
Soil based on SPT
Ref: Teng 1962
A rectangular footing of size3mx6m is founded at a
depth of 1m in a homogeneous sandy soil. The water
table is at a great depth. The unit wt. of soil is 18
kn/m2.determine net ultimate bearing capacity.
Given:
 Design criteria
 Prior to the industrial revolution, little attention was
given to the design of a foundation. Certain
construction practices had been developed and
a number of empirical rules had been formulated.
 The general approach was to employ a form of
spread foundation unless soft material was
encountered in which case, piles were driven. The
procedure proved satisfactory in most instances as
the buildings were light and flexible.
 Towards the end of the 19th century, higher and
heavier structures were introduced. Foundation
failures became more common and engineers
began to seek more reliable procedures.
 Structural engineering made rapid progress
about this time. The classical theories based on
elastic, homogeneous materials were developed
and applied to steel and concrete structures.
 Obviously these theories were not applicable to
soil, the most variable and apparently inelastic
material available to Civil Engineer. In these
circumstances, foundation design remained an
art where experience and empirical rules
prevailed.
 It was a little wonder that inadequate
foundations were the major cause of structural
failure at that time.
 The first attempt to rationalize the design of the shallow
foundations was the introduction of the “allowable soil
pressure” concept.
 In this method, a table of allowable soil pressures was
drawn up for various foundation soil types based upon
experience. The method ignored many important factors
affecting the behavior of a foundation;
 hence excessive settlements and failures frequently
occurred. This method is still permitted by some Building
Regulations and many texts provide tables of estimated
allowable bearing pressure for various soil and rock
types as illustrated in Table 1.
 However the bearing pressure values listed in such
tables should be used only for preliminary design
purposes or for minor structures where the cost of soil
investigation is not justified.
 Prior to about 1920 attempts to measure the
safe bearing pressure consisted of loading to
failure in the field a small plate about 0.3m
square, as shown in the Fig 2.3(a), and then
using the load-settlement curve obtained
therefrom to infer the bearing pressure to be
used in the design.
 While this procedure, if correctly performed
and interpreted, can provide a satisfactory
design, it has been claimed that the plate
load test was the greatest single cause of
failure in the history of foundations. The
reasons for this observation are as follows.
 High stresses are produced in the soil below the
plate only to a depth equal to about twice the
width of the loaded area. Consequently the initial
settlement of the plate will be governed by the
compressilbity of the soil within the depth of about
0.6m.
 If the load is increased to failure the plate will
usually fail by rotation along some surface such as
a b c [Fig 2.3(b)] when shear strength of the soil
around the slip surface has been fully mobilised.
 It follows therefore that compressibility is obtained
only for the soil within a depth of about 0.6m and
the shear strength inferred from this test relates
only to the soil within a distance of about 0.3m
below the plate.
 If the surface soil deposit is underlain by a
weaker, more compressible soil stratum (or if
the deposit becomes weaker with depth) than
a single plate test performed near the ground
surface will provide erroneous information for
the design of a full size building as shown in Fig
2.3(b).
Plate load test inadequacy
 Since 1920 scientific study led by Terzaghi has
revolutionized the design of foundations.
 Today, rational theories are available to
predict the bearing capacity and settlement
of shallow foundations with confidence.
 However, soils are not precisely amenable to
mathematical solution and the engineer
must tamper theory with common sense and
judgement based upon experience.
 For instance, it may be necessary to consider such
factors as the following:
 a) Occurrence during excavation: bottom heave;
wetting, swelling and softening of an expansive
clay or rock; piping in sands and silts; disturbance
of silts and sensitive clays.
 b) Adjacent construction activities: ground water
lowering; excavation; blasting.
 c) Other effects during or following construction:
scour and erosion; frost action; flooding.
 In addition it is the responsibility of the foundation
designer to ensure that the foundation design
allows for any vertical and horizontal extensions of
the structure, that the client may be
contemplating.
 2.1.1 Requirements of a Good
Foundation
 Basically a satisfactory foundation must satisfy three
criteria:
 1) It must be sufficiently deep to be free from seasonal
climatic effects such as frost damage including possible
thawing in permafrost areas, damage from adjacent
construction or possible scour from water flow. The
foundation must also be located below any topsoil,
other organic material, or any unconsolidated soil such
as filled in areas, abandoned garbage dumps, etc.
 2) It must be safe from breaking into the ground
(bearing capacity failure) and,
 3) The settlement of the structure must be kept within
tolerable limits to minimize the angular distortion of the
parts of the structure, to minimize the possibility of
excessive tilting, particularly of buildings with a high
aspect ratio and to prevent damage to adjacent
buildings or attached services, etc.
 The first condition varies of course with each
individual case but generally in cold regions a
minimum foundation depth of about 1.0m to
1.5m is used to place exterior footings below
the frost line.
 In the hot regions, where frost is not a problem,
minimum depth of foundation Is governed by
the depth of erosion due to surface water
runoff to prevent possible loss of support. This in
practice is about 1 m.
 The last two requirements are studied in
subsequent sections.
Design Loading and General
Philosophy

 Every foundation element must be able to

support with an adequate margin of safety
The maximum loading to which it may be
subjected even if this loading may act only
briefly over the lifetime of the structure.
 That is to say an overload or a misjudgment
of the soil properties should result only in an
increase of settlement and not in the
complete failure of the sub-soil.
 Design Loading and General
Philosophy
 The design live loads of buildings is specified according to
the type of occupancy by building codes such as Bureau
of Indian Standards. The structural designer must compute
the contribution of dead and live loads to be supported
by each column on the basis of these Specifications and
the structural action of the superstructure.
 Allowances must also be made for variations in column
loading due to all possible combinations of dead loads,
live loads, wind, earthquake, thermal expansion, etc.
Reduction factors are usually specified according to the
probability of the maximum effect of all of these occurring
simultaneously.
 Each footing must be able to support safely the maximum
load calculated on this basis. However, depending upon
the type of foundation soil these maximum column loads
may not always be the most appropriate for design of
footing with respect to settlement.
Design Loading and General
Philosophy
 The reasons for this are as follows.
 1) The settlement of footings on coarse
grained cohesionless soils, such as sands
and gravels, occurs most rapidly.
Consequently, much of the settlement
due to dead loads will have occurred by
the time the structure is completed.
 The settlement due to live loads will also
occur as soon as the live load is in place
even if the live load exists for a relatively
short duration of time.
Design Loading and General
Philosophy
 In contrast to sands, the consolidation
settlement of structures founded on saturated
clays occurs very slowly and is essentially
unaffected by short duration applications of
live load (provided of course a bearing
capacity failure is not approached).
 Consequently the long-term settlement of
structures on saturated clay should be
computed using dead loads plus the best
possible estimate of the long-term average live
load. The immediate settlement may occur
when clays are first loaded but usually such
settlement is not significant.
 Design Loading and General
Philosophy
 The philosophy used in the design of
foundations is to consider bearing capacity
and settlement separately. A factor of
safety of at least two is required against a
bearing capacity failure even if the
maximum loading can be computed
accurately and the soil properties have
been reliably determined. In practice a
FS=2 is usually used for foundations on
cohesionless soils and a FS=3 is required for
foundations on cohesive soils.
 Design Loading and General
Philosophy
 On the other hand, no load factor or margin of
safety is used when estimating settlements;
rather, the anticipated settlements are
calculated from the actual design loading and
the foundation is proportioned to keep these
calculated settlements within tolerable limits.
Footing sizes are usually selected to try and
achieve equal settlements to minimize the
differential settlements.
Determination of Ultimate
Bearing Capacity
 The ultimate bearing capacity of a
foundation is determined by the
methods listed below:
 1. By the use of theoretical analyses,
such as Terzaghi’s analysis, Skempton
analysis, Meyerhof analysis, etc.
 2. By the use of plate load test results
 3. By the use of penetration test results
 4. By the use of building codes
 By the use of theoretical
analyses
 Attempts to obtain equations for evaluating
ultimate beating capacity of foundations dates
back to the middle of 19th century, with Rankine’s
analysis and Pauker’s analysis being the earliest.
Both the analyses are based on classical earth
pressure theory. In the beginning of 20th
 century Bell (1915) proposed an equation for
ultimate bearing capacity of footing, again
based on classical earth pressure theory.
 Prandtl (1921) and Fellenius (1939) presented their
analysis based on theory of plastic equilibrium.
The equations obtained from the above cited
analyses are not used in practice because of
serious limitations.
By the use of theoretical analyses

 Significant contributions to the subject of

bearing capacity were later made by
Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1951),
Skempton (1951), Brinch Hansen (1961)
and Balla (1962).
 In the following discussion Terzaghi’s
analysis and those following it as
indicated in the above list are reviewed.
It is indeed of interest to go through the
derivations which will help in fully
appreciating the limitations of each
analysis.
Prandtl’s Analysis
 Prandtl’s analysis is based on a study of plastic failure in
metals when punched by hard metal punchers (Prandtl,
1920); Prandtl (1921) adapted the above study to soil
loaded to shear failure under a relatively rigid
foundation. Prandtl’s equation for ultimate bearing
capacity is
 qf = c . cos Φ (𝑁 Φ . e π.tan Φ − 1) . . .Eq
2.2(i)
 where 𝑁 Φ = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45º + Φ /2) =

 It is applicable for 𝑐 − Φ soil. But for a cohesionless

soil for which 𝑐 = 0, Eq 2.2(i) gives qf = 0, which is
ridiculous. This anomaly which is due to the
assumption that the soil is weight less was removed
by Taylor (1948).
Prandtl’s equation with Taylor’s correction is

Taylor also attempted to include the effect of

overburden pressure in the case of a footing
founded at depth D below the ground surface,
resulting in the following equation.
Assumptions made in Prandtl’s
Analysis
 The following assumptions were made in
Prandtl’s analysis.
 1) The soil is homogeneous and isotropic.
 2) The soil mass is weight less.
 3) The shear strength of soil can be
expressed by Mohr-coulomb equation.
 4) Prandtl assumed the failure zones to
be formed as shown in Fig 2.5.
Fig2.5: Failure Zones Assumed in
Prandtl’s Analysis
 Prandtl analysis
 Zone Ι is bound by two planes inclined at
to the horizontal and acts as a rigid body.

 Zone ΙΙ is bound by two planes inclined at

to the horizontal.

 The base of this zone is a logarithmic spiral in section.

All radial sectors in this zone are failure planes.
 Zone ΙΙΙ is bound by two planes inclined at to
the horizontal and also acts as a rigid body.
 5) The problem is essentially two dimensional, i.e., the
equation is derived for a long strip footing.
 6) The base of the footing is smooth.
 The Limitations of Prandtl’s
Analysis are
 1) In the original Prandtl’s equation, the ultimate
bearing capacity reduces to zero for cohesionless soil.
 2) The original Prandtl’s equation is applicable only for
a footing resting on surface.
 Attempts have been made by Taylor to overcome
the anomalies arising due to assumptions (1) and (2)
to some extent.
 3) In the case of a footing resting on purely cohesive
soil, Prandtl’s equation leads to an indeterminate
quantity. Only by applying L’ Hospital’s rule the limiting
value Φ → 0 is obtained as 𝑞u =5.148.
 4) In the original Prandtl’s equation, the size of the
footing is not considered.
Terzaghi’s Analysis
 Terzaghi derived equation for ultimate bearing capacity
of strip footing as:
 𝑞f = 𝑐𝑁c + 𝛾𝐷𝑁q + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 . . . Eq2.3(i)
 where, c = unit cohesion of soil
 𝛾 = unit weight of soil
 D = depth of foundation
 B = width of foundation
 𝑁c , 𝑁q, 𝑁𝛾 are Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors for
strip footing. These factors are dimensionless and depend
only on angle of shearing resistance Φ of soil. It is to be
noted that values of 𝛾 in the second and third terms of
Eq 2.3(i) depend on position of water table and will be
discussed in a later section.
 Assumptions made in Terzaghi’s
Analysis
 Terzaghi while deriving equation for ultimate
bearing capacity of strip footing made the
following assumptions.
 1) The soil mass is homogeneous and isotropic.
 2) The shear strength of soil can be represented
by Coulomb’s equation.
 3) The problem is two dimensional.
 4) The footing has rough base.
 5) The ground surface is horizontal.
 6) The loading is vertical and symmetrical.
 7. Failure zones according to
Terzaghi.

Zone Ι is elastic zone. When footing moves

downward during failure, this zone moves
downward along with footing. It behaves as
though it is a part of the footing.
Failure zones according to Terzaghi

 Zone ΙΙ is radial shear zone bound by two planes

inclined at Φ and (45º − Φ /2) to the horizontal, and
the base being a logarithmic spiral in section. One set
of planes in this zone radiate from a corner of the
footing.
 Zone ΙΙΙ is linear shear zone or Rankine passive zone
with failure planes inclined at (45º − Φ /2) to the
horizontal.
 8) Failures zones are assumed to be formed fully.
 9) The principle of superposition is applicable.
 10) The failure zones do not extend above the base
level of the footing, the effect of soil
 surrounding the footing above its base level is
considered equivalent to a surcharge σ = 𝛾D.
Effect of Shape on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing

 Terzaghi derived the equation for ultimate

bearing capacity of strip footing in which
the case the problem is essentially two-
dimensional. But in the case of square or
circular footing the problem becomes
three-dimensional and more complicated
from mathematical point of view. In the
absence of rigorous theoretical analysis
 Effect of Shape on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing
 Terzaghi suggested that the following
equations may be used
 For square footing

 For circular footing

 For quite some time the equation obtained for

strip footing was used in the case of
rectangular footing. Later rectangular footing
was distinguished from strip footing as one for
which L ≤ 5B and the following equation was
suggested.
 For rectangular footing

In all the three equations qo denotes the

effective overburden pressure at the
base level of foundation.
Effect of Size on Ultimate Bearing
Capacity of Footing
 Case (1) Footing on cohesive soil(c−Φ soil)

 From equation (2.4a) it is clear that in this case

the ultimate bearing capacity depends on size of
footing. It increases as the width of the footing is
increased keeping depth constant.
Effect of Size on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing

 Case (2) Footing on cohesionless soil (c=0)

 When c=0, equation (2.4a) reduces to the following
form

 We notice that in this case also the ultimate bearing

capacity depends on size of footing and increases as
the width is increased keeping depth constant.
Effect of Size on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing
 For Φ=0, Terzaghi's bearing capacity factors are
𝑁c = 5.7 , 𝑁q = 1 and 𝑁𝛾 = 0
 Equation (2.4a) will then reduce to the following
form

 From equation (2.4c) it is clear that for footing on

purely cohesive soil, the ultimate bearing
capacity is independent of size of footing.
Effect of Water Table on Ultimate Bearing
Capacity of Footing

 Method 1: Reduction factor method

 The submerged density of a soil is nearly half of
its saturated density. Based on this fact water-
table reduction factors have been proposed to
consider the effect of rise in water table.
 When the water table lies at a depth, equal to or
greater than width B of foundation, below the
base of foundation, it has no effect on the
ultimate bearing capacity
Effect of Water Table on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing
Effect of Water Table on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing

 When the water table rises above level X-X marked

in Fig 2.9 the effect of rise in water table is to
reduce the ultimate bearing capacity.
 To take into account the effect of rise in water
table, the second and third terms of equation
(2.5a) are to be multiplied by factors 𝑅w1 and 𝑅w2
respectively.
 𝑅w1 and 𝑅w2 are known as water table reduction
factors and are expressed as
 Effect of Water Table on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing

𝑅w1 and 𝑅w2 are calculated as bellow:

where 𝑍w1 is the depth of water table measured below ground

surface and 𝑍w2 the depth of water table measured below
base of footing. The limiting values of 𝑍w1 and 𝑍w2 are as
indicated below
𝑍w1 = 0 when water table is at or above ground level
𝑍w1 = D when water table is at or below base level of footing
𝑍w2 = 0 when water table is at or above base level of footing
𝑍w2 = 0 when water table is at depth equal to or greater than
width B, below base of footing.
Effect of Water Table on Ultimate
Bearing Capacity of Footing

 Both 𝑅w1 and 𝑅w2 can have 0.5 as minimum

value and 1 as maximum value , that is
 0.5≤ 𝑅w1 ≤1
 0.5≤ 𝑅w2 ≤1
 Equation (2.5a) can then be written as
 The permissible value of settlement for
different types of structures IS:1904-1986

These values are only a rough guide to maximum acceptable settlement values.
Normally footings on sand would be restricted to design value of 25 mm
Design Criteria – Safety
against Shear Failure
 Adequate FOS against Bearing Capacity Failure
 High FOS if –
Soils are fine grained
Site not investigated thoroughly
Soil variability is high
Structure is of high importance
More probability of Design Loads
 Design Criteria – Safety
against excessive settlement

 Settlement of Foundation – within permissible limit

Maximum Settlement
Maximum Differential Settlement
Maximum Tilt