DESIGN OF FOOTINGS AND RETAINING WALLS 661

Fig. 14.2 Assumed uniform base pressure distribution under concentric loading
Limiting q to the allowable soil pressure qa will give the minimum required area of
footing:
P + ΔP
Areqd = (14.1a)
qa

Eccentrically Loaded Footings

The load P acting on a footing may act eccentrically with respect to the centroid of
the footing base. This eccentricity e may result from one or more of the following
effects:
• the column transmitting a moment M in addition to the vertical load
[Fig. 14.3(a)];
• the column carrying a vertical load offset with respect to the centroid of the
footing [Fig. 14.3(b)];
• the column (or pedestal) transmitting a lateral force located above the foundation
level, in addition to the vertical load [Fig. 14.3(c)].

e = M/P
e P

ΔP ΔP

C FOOTING C FOOTING

(a) (b)
P
H

e
resultant thrust

P
H

C FOOTING

(c)
662 REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN

Fig. 14.3 Eccentric loading on a footing

In a general case, biaxial eccentricities (i.e., eccentricities of loading with respect

to both the principal centroidal axes of the footing) are possible — as in the case of a
footing for the corner column of a building. However, the case of uniaxial
eccentricity † is more commonly encountered in design practice.
For the purpose of determining the base pressures under eccentric loading, the
footing is assumed to be rigid and the contact pressure distribution to be linear. The
magnitude of the pressure distribution is determined from considerations of simple
static equilibrium. Essentially this means that the centre of pressure (through which
the resultant soil reaction R acts) must be collinear with the resultant line of action of
the eccentrically applied load P + ΔP, with R = P + ΔP [Fig. 14.4].
For preliminary calculations, ΔP, the weight of footing plus backfill, may be taken
as 10–15 percent of P. Various possible linear base pressure distributions are
depicted in Fig. 14.4 for the case of uniaxially eccentric loading on a rectangular
footing.
Case 1: e ≤L6

If the resultant loading eccentricity e = M/(P + ΔP) lies within the “middle third” of
the footing (i.e., e ≤ L 6 ), it is seen that the entire contact area of the footing is
subject to a (nonuniform) pressure which varies linearly from qmin to qmax
[Fig. 14.4(a)]. These pressures are easily obtained by superposing the separate
effects due to the direct load (P + ΔP) and the bending moment M = (P + ΔP) e:
( P + ΔP ) ( P + Δ P )e
q max,min = ± (14.2a)
A Z
with area A = BL and section modulus Z = BL2/6, where L is the length of the footing
in the direction of the eccentricity e, and B the width of the footing. Accordingly,
( P + ΔP ) ⎛ 6e ⎞
qmax,min = ⎜1 ± ⎟ for e ≤L6 (14.2b)
A ⎝ L⎠
In the limiting case of e = L 6 , qmin = 0 and qmax = 2(P + ΔP)/A, resulting in a
triangular pressure distribution. The uniform pressure distribution q = (P + ΔP)/A
[Eq. 14.1] is obtained as special case of Eq. 14.2b, with e = 0.
This limiting case of e = L 6 , is valid only for uniaxial bending. In case of bi-
axial bending, the limiting case shall be taken as

†
Eccentricities in loading can be quite significant in footings which support columns that form
part of a lateral load resisting frame. However, as the lateral loads are generally assumed to
act (with maximum values) in only one direction at a time, the problem is essentially one of
uniaxial eccentricity . Eccentricities in both directions should be considered, but usually only
one at a time.
 DESIGN OF FOOTINGS AND RETAINING WALLS 663

ex ey
+ ≤1 (14.2c)
Lx / 6 L y / 6

Case 2: e >L6
When the resultant eccentricity e exceeds L/6, Eq. 14.2 becomes invalid because it
will yield a negative value for qmin, implying a tensile force at the interface.
However, such tension resisting capacity cannot be practically expected from soil † .
Assuming a triangular pressure distribution (considering the soil under compression
alone), and considering a collinear line of action of the resultant soil reaction R with
the eccentric load P + ΔP, with R = P + ΔP (for static equilibrium), [Fig. 14.4(b)],
2( P + ΔP)
qmax = (14.3)
BL′

†
In fact, it can be expected that the soil will tend to separate from the footing base, thereby
offering no pressure whatsoever in the base regions farthest removed from qmax.
664 REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN

P P

M M

P + ΔP P + ΔP
M
M e=
e= P + ΔP
P + ΔP c = 0.5L – e

ΔP ΔP

qmax
qmax
qmin
R = P + ΔP
R = P + ΔP
L′ = 3c
L
L
(a) e < L/6 (b) e > L/6
P
M
H
resultant thrust
M/P

ΔP

q = (P + ΔP) / (BL)

L/2 L/2
P + ΔP

(c) e =0
Fig. 14.4 Assumed linear base pressure distributions under uniaxially eccentric
loading on rectangular footings
L ′ = 3c ⎫
⎬ (14.4)
c = 0.5 L − e ⎭
Thus, it is seen that the effective length of contact is reduced from L to L ′ = 3c,
and the maximum soil pressure qmax is increased from (P + ΔP)/A to twice the load
(P + ΔP) divided by the effective area BL′ . In order to limit qmax to the allowable
bearing pressure qa, and also to maximise the effective bearing area ratio L ′ L , it
may be necessary to design a footing with a large base area. Such footings are
commonly encountered in industrial buildings where columns are relatively lightly
loaded axially, but subject to high bending moments due to lateral wind loads or
eccentric gantry crane loads.
It may be noted that highly nonuniform base pressures (especially under sustained
eccentric loads) are undesirable as this can result in possible tilting of the footing.
 DESIGN OF FOOTINGS AND RETAINING WALLS 665

Hence, proportioning of the footing base should be such as to make the contact
pressure as uniform as possible.

Case 3: Eliminating Eccentricity in Loading

Where the magnitude of eccentricity in loading is known with some degree of
certainty and its direction is fixed, it is possible to arrive at an economical design
solution by laterally shifting the footing base, relative to the column, such that the
effective eccentricity in loading is reduced considerably, if not eliminated altogether.
This is not only desirable from the viewpoint of economy but also desirable from the
viewpoint of eliminating possible titling of the footing on account of non-uniform
base pressure. The ideal situation of zero effective eccentricity is depicted in
Fig. 14.4(c), where it is shown that by suitably offsetting the footing base so that the
resultant line of thrust passes through the centroid of the footing, a uniform pressure
distribution is obtainable, with q = (P + ΔP)/A. However, some increase in bearing
pressure should be considered in practice, to account for possible variations in the
estimated M/P ratio.
Indeed, such a design solution becomes impracticable when the M/P ratio is
highly uncertain in magnitude, and especially when the bending moment can be
reversible (as under wind loads).

14.3.3 Instability Problems: Overturning and Sliding

When lateral loads act on a structure, adequate stability of the structure as a whole
should be ensured at the foundation level — against the possibilities of overturning
and sliding. Instability due to overturning may also occur due to eccentric loads, in
footings for columns which support cantilevered beams/slabs.
The Code (Cl. 20) recommends a factor of safety of not less than 1.4 against both
sliding and overturning † under the most adverse combination of the applied
characteristic loads. In cases where dead loads contribute to improved safety, i.e.,
increased frictional resistance against sliding or increased restoring moment against
overturning moment, only 0.9 times the characteristic dead load should be
considered.
It may be noted that problems of overturning and sliding are relatively rare in
reinforced concrete buildings, but are commonly encountered in such structures as
retaining walls [refer Section 14.8], chimneys, industrial sheds, etc. The resistance
against sliding is obtained by friction between the concrete footing base and the soil
below, as well as the passive resistance of the soil in contact with the vertical faces of
the footing. Improved resistance against sliding can be obtained by providing a local
‘shear key’ at the base of the footing, as is sometimes done in foundations for
retaining walls. Such a ‘shear key’ serving as construction joint, may also be
provided at the interface of the wall/column and the footing, thereby facilitating the

†
Against overturning, the Code (Cl. 20.1) permits a reduced minimum factor of safety of 1.2 if
the overturning moment is entirely due to dead loads. However, it is advisable to apply a
uniform minimum factor safety of 1.4 in all cases of loading.
666 REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN

transfer of horizontal shear forces (due to lateral loads) at the base of the
wall/column.
The restoring moment, counterbalancing the overturning moment due to
lateral/eccentric loads is generally derived from the weight of the footing plus
backfill. In some cases, this may call for footings with large base area [refer
Fig. 14.4(b)] and large depths of foundation. However, in cases where the
overturning moment (not due to wind or earthquake) is not reversible, the problem
can be more economically solved by suitably making the column/wall eccentric to
the centre of the footing [refer Fig. 14.4(c)].
Another possibility, relatively rare in practice, is the case of pullout of a
foundation supporting a tension member. Such a situation is encountered, for
example, in an overhead tank (or silo) structure (supported on multiple columns),
subjected to a very severe lateral wind load. Under minimal gravity load conditions
(tank empty), the windward columns are likely to be under tension, with the result
that the forces acting on these column foundations will tend to pull out the column-
footing from the soil. The counteracting forces, comprising the self weight of the
footing and the weight of the overburden, should be sufficiently large to prevent such
a ‘pullout’. If the tensile forces are excessive, it may be necessary to resort to tension
piles for proper anchorage.

14.4 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND CODE

REQUIREMENTS

14.4.1 Factored Soil Pressure at Ultimate Limit State

As mentioned earlier, the area of a footing is fixed on the basis of the allowable
bearing pressure qa and the applied loads and moments under service load conditions
(with partial load factors applicable for the ‘serviceability limit state † ’). Once the
base area of the footing is determined, the subsequent structural design of the footing
is done for the factored loads, using the partial load factors applicable for the
‘ultimate limit state’. In order to compute the factored moments, shears, etc., acting
at critical sections of the footing, a fictitious factored soil pressure qu, corresponding
to the factored loads, should be considered.
It may further be noted that the soil pressure which induces moments and shears in
the footing base slab are due to the net pressure qnet, i.e., excluding the pressure
induced by the weight ΔP of the footing and the backfill (assumed to be uniformly
distributed). This net pressure is due to the concentrated load on the column (from
the superstructure) and the moments at the base of the column (or pedestal), as shown
in Fig. 14.5. Using gross pressures instead of net pressures will result in needlessly
conservative designs. The ‘factored net soil pressure’ qu to be considered in the
design of the footing at the limit state is obtainable from the factored loads on the
column (Pu, Mu) as shown in Fig. 14.5(b).

†
As mentioned in Section 3.6.3, the partial load factor may be taken as unity in general —
except for the load combination DL + LL + WL/EL, where a partial load factor of 0.8 is
applicable for live loads (LL) and for wind loads (WL)/earthquake loads (EL).
 DESIGN OF FOOTINGS AND RETAINING WALLS 667

P
M

ΔP
qmin
qmax
gross soil
pressure

=
ΔP/A

+
P M
+
P M A Z
− net soil
A Z pressure

(a)

Pu
Mu

Pu M u
qu, min qu,max = +
A Z

factored (net) soil pressure

(b)
Fig. 14.5 Net soil pressure causing stresses in a footing

14.4.2 General Design Considerations

The major design considerations in the structural design of a footing relate to flexure,
shear (both one-way and two-way action), bearing and bond (development length).
In these aspects, the design procedures are similar to those for beams and two-way
slabs supported on columns. Additional considerations involve the transfer of force
from the column/pedestal to the footing, and in cases where horizontal forces are
involved, safety against sliding and overturning.
Deflection control is not a consideration in the design of footings which are buried
underground (and hence not visible). However, control of crack-width and
protection of reinforcement by adequate cover are important serviceability
considerations, particularly in aggressive environments. It is considered sufficient to