COMBINED FOOTINGS

Definition:

A footing supporting two or more columns in a single row is called as a combined footing. This
is used:

1. For a boundary column to reduce differential settlement

2. For weak soils having high compressibility and

3. Small spacing of columns carrying heavy loads

Design Philosophy:

Design the footing so that the centre of gravity (c.g.) of the footing coincides with the line of
reaction of the resultant force. This will help in generating a uniform pressure underneath the
common pad, reduce the tendency of overturning and differential settlement.

Notes:

1. For a case where exterior column loading is greater than interior; a trapezoidal shape will be
needed.

2. When the interior column is heavily loaded, then a rectangular footing is required.

Example:

Design a combined footing of width B = 5 ft and of footing of 3 ft below EGL

Q1 = 300 k Q2 = 150 k

B A
11'
14"x14"
20"x20"

3'

Q1 and Q 2 are net loads, qa = 4 ksf c = 150 pcf

Solution:

Safe net bearing capacity, qsn = 4000  3150 = 3550 psf = 3.550 ksf

1
 Qn 450
Area of footing, A =   126.76 ft 2
q sn 3.550

For B = 5 ft L = 126.76/5 = 25.352 ft use L = 25.4 ft.

Locate the position of the resultant force R by taking moment about column B. Let x be the
distance between column B and the resultant force.

450  x = 150 (11 + 10/12+7/12)  x = 4.14 ft use 4.10 ft

300 k 150 k

B A
12.4'
xb xa

Floor level

Filling
Old GL

8.6' 4.1' 8.3' 4.4'

x L 25.4
xb   4.1   4.1  8.6'
2 2
5' + L 25.4
c.g. x a   8.3   8.3  4.4'
2 2

Example:

Redo the previous example if outer edge of column A is 5 inch from the property line.

Solution:

L  7"5"  8.3'
  8.3    9.3' 5.2' 4.1'
7"5"
2  12 
Property line

 L = 18.6 ft
6.8' +
c.g./c.p.
126.76 300 k 150 k
and B=  6.8 ft
18.6
18.6'

c.p. : Centreof pressure

2
 STRAP FOOTINGS

A strap footing is used to connect an eccentrically loaded column footing to an interior column.
The strap is used to transmit the moment caused from eccentricity to the interior column footing
so that a uniform soil pressure is computed beneath both footings. The strap serves the same
purpose as the interior portion of a combined footing but is much narrower to save materials.

A strap footing is used in lieu of a combined footing or trapezoid footing if

1. the distance between columns is large

2. allowable soil pressure is relatively large.

There are three basic design considerations for strap footings:

1. Strap must be rigid, i.e. Istrap/Ifooting  2. This rigidity is necessary to control rotation of the
exterior column

2. Footings should be proportioned for approximately equal soil pressure and approximately
equal widths to reduce differential settlement.

3. Strap is a pure flexural member to withstand bending moments and shear stresses. For this
purpose strap should be out of contact with underneath soil so that no soil reactions are
developed. This purpose can also achieved by loosening several inches of the underlying soil
prior to the placement of the concrete.

A strap footing should be considered as one of the ‘last resort’ due to extra labour and forming
costs. The strap may have a number of configurations; however, that shown in figure ‘a’ should
produce the greatest rigidity with the width at least equal to the smallest column width. If the
depth is restricted, it may be necessary to increase the strap width to obtain the necessary
rigidity. The strap should be securely attached to the column and footing by dowels so that the
system acts as a unit.

3
 Q1 Q2

1 2
S

STRAP

x e R1 S' R2
L1/2
Alternate for large
moment gradient from
column 1 to 2.

STRAP

(a)

Strap
Strap

(b)
(c)

Common arrangements of strap

Strap footings

(d)

Design equations:
4
Taking moment about column 2
S
R1  Q1 1
S
R2 = (Q1 + Q2) – R1 2
For both footings Ri = (BL) qa 3
Also L1/2 = e + x
The equations 1 to 3 are used to proportion the footing dimensions. The length dimension of the
eccentrically loaded footing is dependent upon the designer’s arbitrarily selected value of ‘e’ so
that a unique solution is not likely.
Example:
Proportion a strap footing for the column spacing and loading shown using the USD method.
The allowable soil pressure is 120 kPa. Both columns are 400 mm square.

Q1 D = 320 kN Q2 D = 500 kN
L = 260 kN L = 400 kN

1 2
6.2 m

STRAP

x e R1 S' R2

L 1/2
Solution:
Qu1 = 1.2D + 1.6L = 1.2320 + 1.6260 = 800 kN
Qu2 = 1.2500 + 1.6400 = 1240 kN
Qu = 2,040 kN
Qu 2040
 qult  qa   120  165.4 kPa
Q 1480
Trial # 1
Let e = 1.2 m L1 = 2(e + x) = 2(1.2 + 0.2) = 2.8 m and S = 6.2 – 1.2 = 5.0 m
Taking moment about column 2 = 0
6.2  800
5R1 - 8006.2 = 0  R1   992 kN
5
R2 = (Qu1 + Qu2) – R1 = 2040 – 992 = 1048 kN
Footing dimensions:
5
 R1 992
For Column 1 B1    2.14 m
L1  q ult 2.8  165.4

R2 1048
For Column 2 B 2  L2    2.52 m
qult 165.4
Trial # 2
Let e = 1.1 m L1 = 2(e + x) = 2(1.1 + 0.2) = 2.6 m and S = 6.2 – 1.1 = 5.1 m
6.2  800
 R1   972.5 kN and R2 = 2040 – 972.5 = 1067.5 kN
5. 1
Footing dimensions:
R1 972.5
For Column 1 B1    2.26 m
L1  q ult 2.6  165.4

1067.5
For Column 2 B 2  L2   2.54 m
165.4
Trial # 3
Let e = 1.0 m L1 = 2(e + x) = 2(1.0 + 0.2) = 2.4 m and S = 6.2 – 1.0 = 5.2 m
6.2  800
 R1   953.8 kN and R2 = 2040 – 953.8 = 1086.2 kN
5. 2
Footing dimensions:
R1 953.8
For Column 1 B1    2.40 m
L1  q ult 2.4  165.4

1086.2
For Column 2 B 2  L2   2.56 m
165.4
Summary:

Trial # e (m) Column # B (m) L (m)

Remarks
1 1.2 1 2.14 2.8
2 2.52 2.52
2 1.1 1 2.26 2.6
2 2.54 2.54
3 1.0 1 2.40 2.40 OK as difference in B is minimum
2 2.56 2.56

6
 Design of Trapezoid-shaped Footings

s
w1/2

b + a
1 c.g./c.p 2
2(x+w1/2) < s

x' Rectangular footing

is too short to reach
column 2.

A combined footing will be trapezoid-shaped if the column which has too limited space for a
spread footing carries the larger load. In this case the resultant of the column loads (including
moments) will be closer to the larger column load and doubling the centroid distance as done for
the rectangular footing will not provide sufficient length to reach the interior column. The
footing geometry necessary for a trapezoid-shape footing is illustrated in the Figure above from
which we obtain:

ab
A L 1
2

L 2a  b
x  2
3 ab

From Eq. 2 and the Figure, it can be seen that the solution for a = 0 is a triangle and if a = b, we
have a rectangle. Therefore, it follows that a trapezoid solution exists only for L/3 < x < L/2
with minimum value of L as out-to-out of the column faces. The value of L must be known and
P  Pu
the area A will be based on the soil pressure and column loads ( A  or ). The forming
qa qult
and reinforcing steel for a trapezoid shape footing is somewhat awkward to place. For these
reasons, it may be preferable to use a strap footing where possible, since essentially the same
goal of producing a computed uniform soil pressure is obtained.
Example: Proportion a trapezoidal footing using factored loads (i.e. USD).

DL = 1200 kN DL = 900 kN
Solution: LL = 816 kN LL = 660 kN
Q1 = 2016 kN Q2 = 1560 kN
Qu1 = 1.41200 + 1.7816 = 3067.2 kN

Qu2 = 1.4  900 + 1.7660 = 2382.0 kN

1 2
5.48 m
 Qu = 3067.2 + 2382.0 = 5449.2 kN 0.46 x 0.46 0.46 x 0.46

Property line
and Q = 2016 + 1560 = 3576 kN

Pseudo bearing capacity (ultimate), x

qa = 190 kPa
x' R
Qu 5449.2
qu  qa   190  289.53 kPa
Q 3576
Taking moment about column 1:
b + a
5449.2  x = 5.48  2382  c.p

x = 2.395 m

0.46
 x  x   2.395  0.23  2.625 m (i)
2
Lmin. = 5.48 + 0.46 = 5.94 m
L L
Since  x   we have a trapezoid for which
2 3
L 2a  b
x   or
3 ab
5.94 2a  b 2a  b
x    2.625 or  1.326 (ii)
3 ab ab
ab Qu  a  b 
For a trapezoid, A  L Also A     5.94
 2  qu  2 
5449.2
or  a  b   2.97  (a + b) = 6.337 (iii)
289.53
From (ii) 2a + b = 1.326  6.337 = 8.403 (iv)
Using equations (iii) and (iv), a = 2.065 m b = 4.273 m
Example: Proportion the combined footing where Q1 and Q2 are the net loads.

Solution:
Q1 = 100 k Q2 = 180 k

Taking moment about column 2

280  x  100  10  x  3.57' 1 2
10'
and
1'x1' 1.5'x1.5'
x   x  0.75  2.0  3.57  2.75  6.32' 2'

Length from Figure,

Property line
L = 10 + 0.5 + 0.75 + 2 = 13.25 ft x
qa (net) = 2.8 ksf R
x'

L L
Since  x   we have a trapezoid for which
2 3
L 2a  b  13.25  2a  b 
x      (i)
3 a  b  3  a  b 
a b Qn 280
Also A   L    100 ft 2
 2  q a ( net ) 2.8

a  b   13.25  100 or (a + b) = 15.09 (ii)

2
From (i) 2a + b = 21.59 (iii)
From (ii) and (iii)
a = 6.5 ft and b = 8.59 ft

6.5' 8.59'

13.25'
 ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN (USD) METHOD

Working loads are converted to ultimate loads through the use of load factors as:

Qu  1.4 D  1.7 L
 0.75(1.4 D  1.7 L  1.7W )
 0.9 D  1.3W (alternative with wind )

For earthquake loading substitute E for W as applicable.

BEARING CAPACITY BASED ON IN-SITU AND LABORATORY TESTS

IN-SITU TESTS

BC can be estimated by in-situ and laboratory tests, the most common in-situ tests for BC
evaluation are

 Standard Penetration Test (SPT), very cheap, most common and popular

 Cone Penetration Test (CPT), very sophisticated, costly, not very common as compared
with SPT

 Vane shear Test

SPT

SPT-N Value:

Number of blows required for

12 inch penetration of split
spoon sampler under the impact
of a standard wt. of 140 lbs
dropped from a height of 30
inch

1
 It consists of penetrating a sampler known as split spoon sampler by dropping a standard
weight of 140 lbs by 30 inch height. The sampler is penetrating by 18 inches total and
for each 6 inches; the number of blows required for each of the penetration are counted
separately. The number of blows for first 6 inches is ignored and the total numbers of
blows for next two 6 inch penetration (total 12 inch) are taken and known as SPT-N
value. (e.g. if the respective blow count for three successive 6 inch penetration are 8, 9,
10 then SPT-N value is 9.)

 As a part of test, the representative but disturbed soil sample is procured at the test depth
for laboratory testing.

 SPT is generally performed at every 1 m interval up to 15~20 m and then interval may
be increased to 1.5-2 m.

 If SPT is performed below GWT, the SPT-N values is overestimated and a correction to
measured N is (dilatancy correction) applied if SPT-N value exceeds 15

Ncorr. = 15 + 0.5(Nmeasured -15)

 The SPT is more reliable for granular soils as compared with fine grained soils.

 In case of gravels, a 60o cone is used in stead of split spoon samples

 If SPT is performed below GWT, sand boiling causes disturbance leading to erroneous
SPT-N values. The borehole casing should be filled with water all the time to avoid sand
boiling in case of light percussion technique.

 The SPT-N value has the following correlation with different parameters.

2
 GRANULAR SOILS

Description Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense

Relative density, Dr 0 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.35 0.35 – 0.65 0.65 – 0.85 0.85 – 1.00

Standard Penetration Test 0–4 5 – 10 11 – 30 31 – 50 51 – UP

value, N

Approximate angle of internal 25 – 28 28 – 30 30 – 35 35 – 40 38 – 43

friction, degree)

Approximate range of moist 70 – 100 90 – 115 110 – 130 110 – 140 130 – 150
unit weight,  (pcf)

Submerged unit weight, sub 60 55 – 65 60 – 70 65 – 85 75

COHESIVE SOILS
Description Very Soft Firm/med Stiff Very Stiff Hard
Soft ium stiff

Unconfined compressive 0 – 0.25 0.25 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.0 2.0 – 4.0 4.0 – UP
strength, qu (tsf)

Standard Penetration Test 0–2 3–4 5–8 9 – 16 17 – 32 33 – UP

value, N

Approx. range of saturated unit 100 – 120 100 – 130 120 – 140 130+
weight, sat (pcf)

3
 1. Bearing Capacity from SPT

a. Terzaghi & Peck (1948) Method

Terzaghi & Peck (1948) were first to propose a correlation between SPT-N value and allowable
pressure for a settlement of 25 mm (1 inch). The estimation of qa is considered to be very
conservative and is generally not used by current practitioners. The equation is as under:

2
 B  1
q a  720 N  3  K d R w N>3
 2B 

where qa = net allowable bearing pressure in psf for 1 inch settlement and B in ft.
2
 B  0.305 
or q a  34.5 N  3   K d R w , qa in kPa, B in m
 2B 

D
K d  (1  0.33 )  1.33 , (for R’w see Fig. 1)
B

This equation can be modified for calculation of settlement for any given pressure
2
2. 9  B 
s   qC K s in mm, B in m and q in kPa
N  3  B  0.305  d w
Cd = 1 for D/B = 0 Cd = 0.75 for D/B = 1

Kw = 1 for Dw > B Kw = 2.0 for Dw = 0

b. Meyerhof (1956) method:

(SI units) qa = 12 N Kd for B1.2 m

N
(Fps units) qa = Kd for B < 4 ft
4

2
 B  0.3 
(SI units) qa = 8 N   Kd for B > 1.2 m
 B 
2
N  B  1
(Fps units) qa =   Kd for B > 4 ft
6 B 

4
Where,
qa = allowable bearing pressure for a maximum settlement of 25 mm or 1-inch, kPa or ksf.
N = SPT resistance in blows/300 mm = statistical average value for the footing influence zone
of about 0.5B above footing base to at least 2B below.
B = footing width in meters or feet.
D
Kd = depth factor = (1  0.33 )  1.33
B
s
For any settlement, s actual  q actual
qa

For s = 25 mm, the above equations (in SI units) can be modified to determine settlement under
the known contact pressure or vice versa as below:

2
s actual  C d q actual for B  1.2 m
N

2
3.12  B 
s actual    C d q actual for B > 1.2 m
N  B  0.3 

1 1
Where C d    0.75 and  1.0
Kd D
1  0.33
B

c. Meyerhof method modified by Bowles (1977):

(SI units) qa = 20 N Kd for B1.2 m

N
(Fps units) qa = Kd for B < 4 ft
2.5

2
 B  0.3 
(SI units) qa.= 12.5 N   Kd for B > 1.2 m
 B 
2
N  B  1
(Fps units) qa =   Kd for B > 4 ft
4 B 

Where,
qa = allowable bearing pressure for a maximum settlement of 25 mm or 1-inch, kPa or ksf.
N = SPT resistance in blows/300 mm = statistical average value for the footing influence zone
of about 0.5B above footing base to at least 2B below.

5
B = footing width in meters or feet.
D
Kd = depth factor = (1  0.33 )  1.33
B
s
For any settlement, s actual  q actual
qa

For s = 25 mm, the above equations (in SI units) can be modified to determine settlement under
the known contact pressure or vice versa as below:

1.25
s actual  C d q actual for B  1.2 m
N

2
2 B 
s actual    C d q actual for B > 1.2 m
N  B  0. 3 

1 1
Where C d    0.75 and  1.0
Kd D
1  0.33
B

d. Teng (1962) Relations based on shear failure criterion

For strip footing:
qult  3BN 2 R w  5(100  N 2 ) DRw (Fps units)
The above equation may be modified for qs (FS=3) in SI units

q s  0.157 BN 2 R w  0.262(100  N 2 ) DR w (SI units)

For square footing:
qult  2 BN 2 Rw  6(100  N 2 ) DR w (Fps units)
The above equation may be modified for qs (FS=3) in SI units

q s  0.105 BN 2 R w  0.314(100  N 2 ) DR w (SI units)

Where,
qs = net safe bearing capacity w.r.t. shear failure alone for FOS of 3 in psf or kPa
B = footing width in ft or meters
N = SPT resistance in blows/300 mm
D = footing depth in ft or meters; if D > B use D = B for computation

6
 Rw & R'w = water table reduction factor

B
Footing

Water Table
Df
da

Water db
B Table

(a)
da db
R w = 1 - 0.5 R' w = 0.5 + 0.5
Df B
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
Reduction factor, Reduction factor,
Rw 0.7 0.7
R' w
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
d a /D f d b /B

(b) (c)

Fig. 1: Correction factors for position of water level: (a) depth of water level with respect
to dimension of footing; (b) water level above base of footing; (c) water level below base of
footing.

e. Parry (1977) Relation based on shear failure criterion

For cohesionless soils only

qult = 30 N (kPa) (D  B)

N = average SPT value at a depth about 0.75B below the proposed base of the footing.

7
 2. Bearing Capacity using CPT

(i) Meyerhof (1956)

For a maximum settlement of 25 mm; for foundations (strip or square) on dry sands:

qa= 3.6 qc kN/m2  qc/30 kg/cm2 for B  1.2 m

qa= 2.1 qc (1 + 1/B)2 kN/m2  qc/50 (1 + 1/B)2 kg/cm2 for B > 1.2 m

For any value of B, an approximate formula is:

qa= 2.7 qc kN/m2 = qc/40 kg/cm2

Where,
qa = allowable pressure for 25 mm
B = footing width in meters.
qc = CPT cone resistance in kPa.
Notes:
 above equations are based on the approximate rule that N =qc/4 (in kg/cm2).

 qa is halved if the sand within the stresses zone is submerged.

 For rafts and pier foundations, double the qa values determined above.

(ii) Schmertmann (1978)

The bearing capacity factors for use in Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation can be
estimated as:
0.8 Nq  0.8 N  qc D/B  1.5.
Where qc is average cone resistance over depth interval from B/2 above to 1.1B below
footing base.

 For Cohesionless Soils

Strip: q ult  28  0.0052(300  q c )1.5 in kg/cm 2 or tons/ft2

Square: q ult  48  0.009(300  q c )1.5 in kg/cm 2 or tons/ft2

 For Cohesive Soils

Strip: qult  2  0.28q c in kg/cm 2 or tons/ft2

Square qult  5  0.34q c in kg/cm 2 or tons/ft2

8
 3. Bearing Capacity Using Vane Shear Test (VST)

qult  5 u (1  0.2 D B)(1  0.2 B L)   v

Where,
 = strength reduction factor
T
u = undrained shear strength =
3. 6 D 3
T = measured torque
D = blade diameter of vane
v = total overburden pressure at foundation level.

1.2

1.0


0.8

0.6

0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PI , (%)

Correction factor for the field vane test as a function of PI, (after Bjerrum, 1972, and
Ladd, et al., 1977).

9
 4. BEARING CAPACITY FROM PLATE LOAD TEST

Dead Weight
Loading
Frame

Three Settlement Pit

Dial Gauges Spaced Rigid Steel Plate
o
at 120 apart approx. of Square Shape

Hydraulic Jack with

Loading Cell

Schematic sketch showing load-test arrangement

For details of equipment and testing procedure, refer to ASTM D 1195

 The load is applied in increments of 25% of the proposed design load.
 Increments are added till the final load is 150 to 200% of the proposed design load or
to the failure of the soil underneath the plate.
 Each increment of load is maintained until the settlement is ceased; however the final
applied load is maintained for not less than 24 hours.
 Settlement dial readings are recorded for each load increment after 5, 10, 15, 30, 60
minutes and every 1 hour interval thereafter to the first 6 hours and at least once every
12 hours thereafter.

Load

Pu P u = Ultimate Load

1
Settlement

Typical load-settlement plots of a load test

10
Data Reduction and Analysis
The ultimate load can be obtained:
 directly from the curve (1) or
 using two tangents method, curve (2).
then

qult, foundation = qult, load test for clay

B 
q ult  q plate  foundation  for sand
 B 
 plate 

Settlement of prototype footing (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948):

Bf
s f  sp ( ) for clays, and
Bp
2 2
 Bf   B p  1
Sf  Sp    for sands
 Bp   B  1
   f 

For a square plate of 1 ft  1 ft size

2
 2B f 
s f  sp   for sands
 B  1
 f 
Where sf & sp = settlements of prototype foundation and a square plate of 1 ft  1 ft size
respectively.
Bf (or B) & Bp = widths of the prototype foundation and plate respectively.
Above equations are for surface footings i.e. D = 0
To estimate the settlement of footings placed at depth D apply the depth correction factor
using Fox's (1948) curves.
How to Obtain BC from Plate Load Test Results

The permissible settlement Sf for a prototype foundation should be known. Normally

settlement of 2.5 cm (1 inch) is recommended. In above equations, the values of Sf and Bp
are therefore known. The unknown are Sp and B f. The value of Sp for any assumed size Bf
may be found out from the above equations and then using the plate load settlement curve,
the value of the bearing pressure corresponding to the computed value of Sp is found out.

11
 The bearing pressure is the allowable bearing pressure for a given permissible settlement
Sf.

Limitation of the Plate Load Test

1. Since plate load test is of short duration, it will not give consolidation settlement. If the
underlying soil is sandy in nature immediate settlement may be taken as the total
settlement. If the soil is clayey type, the immediate settlement is only a fraction of the total
settlement. Load tests, therefore, do not have much significance in clayey soils to
determine allowable pressure on the basis of settlement criterion.

2. Plate load tests should be used with caution and the present practice is not to rely too
much on this test. If the soil is not homogeneous to a great depth, plate load tests give very
misleading results.

Soil-1, stiff clay

Soil-2, soft clay

Assume two layers of soil. The top layer is stiff clay where as the bottom layer is soft clay.
The load test conducted near the surface of the ground measures the characteristics of stiff
clay but does not indicate the nature of the soft clay soil which is below. The actual
foundation of a building, however, has a bulb of pressure which extends to a great depth
into the poor soil which is highly compressible. Whereas the soil tested by the plate load
test is very good leading to unsafe design. Plate load test is, therefore, not at all

12
 recommended on soils, which are not homogeneous at least to a depth equal to 1.5 to 2
times the width of the prototype foundation.

3. Plate load tests should not be relied on to determine the ultimate B.C of sandy soils as
the scale (size) effect gives very misleading results. However, when the tests are carried on
clay soils, the ultimate B.C as determined by the test may be taken as equal to that of the
foundation since the bearing of clay is essentially independent of the footing size

5. BY LABORATORY UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

The B.C of a cohesive soil can also be evaluated from the unconfined compressive test
on cohesive soils. The failure axial stress in case of unconfined compression test is
termed as unconfined compressive stress which is equal to:

qu = 2C
and C = qu/2 and  =0 (for undrained condition)
By Terzaghi’s equation, the BC of cohesive soils for  =0 case is

qun = CNc Nc qun = 6C

= 5.7 or approximately 6

for FS=3

qns = 2C = qu

Therefore, the net safe bearing capacity (qns) of cohesive soil can be taken approximately
equal to unconfined compression strength of cohesive soil.

6. BC BY BUILDING CODES:

In many countries/cities, the local building code stipulates values of allowable soil pressure to
use when designing foundations. These values are usually based on years of experience,
although in some cases they are simply used from the building construction handbooks.

13
These arbitrary values of soil pressure are termed as Presumptive Bearing Pressures. The
presumptive pressures are generally based on a visual soil classification. Following table
summaries the Presumptive Bearing Pressures from the International Building Code.

Table: Presumptive Bearing Pressures from the International Building Code (IBC, 1997)

Soil or Rock Classification Allowable Bearing Pressure, qa

(kPa) (lbs/ft2)

Crystalline Bedrock 600 12,000

Sedimentary or Foliated Rocks 300 6,000

Sandy gravel, or gravel (GW, GP) 250 5,000

Sand, silty Sand, clayey sand, silty gravel, 150 3,000

clayey gravel, (SW, SP, SM, SC, GM and
GC)

Clay, sandy clay, silty clay, or clayey silt, 100 2,000

(CL, ML, MH, CH)

Mud, organic silt, organic clay, peat or 0 0

unprepared fill

14