Suggested Modifications of The Conventional Rigid Method For Mat Foundation Design

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 4, April 2012)
Suggested Modifications of the Conventional Rigid Method for

Mat Foundation Design
S. Shihada1 , J. Hamad2 and M. Alshorafa3
1
Professor, Civil Engr. Dept, IUG-Gaza

Assistant Professor, Civil Engr. Dept, IUG-Gaza- Corresponding Author:
3
M.Sc in Structural Engineering
1
sshihada@iugaza.edu.ps
2
jhamad@iugaza.edu.ps
3
mznshorafa7@gmail.com
Teng [4] describes the conventional rigid method, where

the pressure under the mat follows a planar distribution
such that the centroid of the bearing pressure coincides
with the line of action of the resultant force of all column
loads acting on the mat. Then, the mat is analyzed as a
whole in each of the two perpendicular directions and the
total shear forces and bending moments at any section
cutting across the mat is equal to the arithmetic sum of all
forces and reactions on the left, or right, of this section. The
stress distribution along this section is a problem of a
highly indeterminate nature.
ACI committee 3362R [2] suggests that mats may be
designed and analyzed as either rigid bodies or as flexible
plates supported by elastic foundation. In case column
spacing is less than 1.75 divided by or the mat is very
thick and variation of column loads and spacing is not over
20%, mat may be designed by treating it as a rigid body
and considering strips both ways. These strips are analyzed
as combined footings with multiple column loads and
loaded with the soil pressure on the strip and column
reactions equal to loads obtained from the superstructure
analysis. Since a mat transfers load horizontally, any given
strip may not satisfy vertical load summation.
The effect of column spacing on the behavior of a five
story building is studied by Naratajan and Videivelli [5],
where they conclude that column spacing has a marginal
effect on the contact pressure. Moreover, they state that the
increase in mat thickness results in reduced settlement
increased bending moments and reduced uniform pressure.
Bowels [6] states that the mats may be designed as rigid
structures where the mat is sub-divided into a series of
continuous beams (strips) centered on the appropriate
column lines.
For the series of beams, shear and moment diagram may
be established using either combined footing analysis or
beam moment coefficients. When the soil bearing pressure
is low say 25 kN/m2 he suggests that the mat may be
designed as an inverted flat slab, using heavy beams from
column to column.
Abstract:- The conventional rigid method for mat

foundation design is characterized by its ease in execution and
therefore, suitable for hand calculations and for small-size
mats. Nevertheless, the method is impeded by its inability to
satisfy the equations of static equilibrium, which makes the
evaluation of correct shear forces and bending moments
rather impossible. This study aims at satisfying the
equilibrium equations, by suggesting three modification
procedures of the conventional rigid method, in order to
construct correct shear force and bending moment diagrams.
Based on the results of this study, it is found that the three
proposed modification approaches constitute lower-bound,
average and upper-bound solutions to the internal forces, with
maximum differences between upper and lower-bound
solutions not exceeding 16 %.
Keywords:- Mat; Shear; Moment; Rigid; Modification
Factor; Conventional
I.
INTRODUCTION
The structural design of reinforced concrete mat

foundations has been for many years one of the least
satisfactory areas of design [1].
Mats may be designed and analyzed as either rigid
bodies or as flexible plates supported by an elastic
foundation. An exact theoretical design of a mat on elastic
foundation can be made; however a number of factors
reduce the exactness to a combination of approximations.
These include difficulty in predicting subgrade responses,
variations in soil properties, mat shape, variety of
superstructure loads and effect of superstructure stiffness
on mat. The analysis and design is carried out using any of
the following methods [2]:
Conventional Rigid Method,
Approximate Flexible Method,
Finite Difference Method and
Finite Element Method.
For rigid mat design using the conventional rigid
method, two approaches have been suggested; the inverted
floor system and the combined footing approach [3].
418

The portion between beams is designed as a
conventional one or two way slabs. Furthermore, Bowels
[7] requires that the strip loads need to be adjusted so that
statics is satisfied since the shear between adjacent strips is
not included in the strip free body. For column loads not
falling at the center of the strip area, a nonlinear soil
pressure diagram is to be used to close the shear and
moment diagrams. Later on, it is affirmed that the method
is not recommended at present because of the substantial
amount of approximations and the wide availability of
computer programs that are relatively easy to use [8, 9].
Das [10] presents the conventional rigid method using
strips between column lines in both directions. He proposes
a method for satisfying static equilibrium of forces
resulting from ignoring shear between adjacent strips. This
is done through two sets of modification factors, one for
column loads and the other for soil pressures at both ends
of each of the individual strips. The soil pressure under
each strip is taken as the average of the two values at the
end of each strip. Furthermore Das [11] proposes that the
soil pressure is not to be averaged at the bottom of each
strip while adopting the same modification procedure
described in Das [10].
In this work, the conventional rigid method, using

the strip method, is to be modified using three different
approaches that satisfy the equilibrium of forces in the
vertical direction as well as the summation of moments at
any point along the considered strip. Consequently, correct
shear force and bending moment diagrams can be achieved.
III. THE CONVENTIONAL RIGID METHOD-CASE STUDY
A case-study of mat foundation design is worked out
using the conventional rigid method as described in Das
[10] to show its shortcomings. See Figure-1 and Table-1
for dimensions and loading. Note that ACI 318-08 load
factors are followed [12].
II. IMPORTANCE OF MODIFIED/PROPOSED

CONVENTIONAL RIGID METHOD
The conventional rigid method is characterized by
its simplicity and ease in execution. On the other hand, the
resultant of column loads doesn't coincide with the
resultant of soil pressure under the individual strips, which
leads to violation of the static equilibrium equations. Most
prestigious foundation design textbooks shy away from this
fact either by selecting symmetrically-loaded strips and
using uniform soil pressure to reduce the eccentricity to
zero, or by drawing mistaken shear force and bending
moment diagrams that do not close [7, 9, 10, 11]. Others
analyzed the mat as a whole in each of the two
perpendicular directions and evaluated the shears and
moments along selected sections [4]. The stress distribution
along this section is a problem of a high indeterminacy.
Figure 1 Layout of mat foundation (cm)
419

Table 1
Load calculations
Column
D.L
(kN)
L.L
(kN)
Qu
(kN)
Xi
(m)
Q u Xi
(kN.m)
Yi
(m)
Q u Yi
(kN.m)
C1
780
390
1560
0.00
21
32760
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
1601
1446
671
1572
3231
2953
1383
1338
2804
2868
1360
603
1275
1316
626
801
723
336
786
1616
1477
692
669
1402
1434
680
302
638
658
313
3202
2892
1342
3144
6462
5906
2766
2676
5608
5736
2720
1206
2550
2632
1252
51654
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
16010
28920
20130
0.00
32310
59060
41490
0.00
28040
57360
40800
0.00
12750
26320
18780
381970
21
21
21
14
14
14
14
7
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
67240
60732
28182
44016
90468
82684
38724
18732
39256
40152
19040
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
561988
Step 1: Evaluate the factored net soil pressure under the

mat
The eccentricity ex is given as
381970
ex
7.5 0.105 m
51654
The eccentricity ey is given as
561988
ey
10.5 0.38 m
51654
5,1654 ( 54350 ) x 19621 y
qu ,net
7645.9
14985.9
358.4
144.1 ( 7.1 ) x 13.1 y
Step 2- Draw shear and bending moment diagrams
The mat is divided into four strips in the first
perpendicular direction and another four in the second
direction. Strip BDKM which is 22.4 m long and 5 m wide
is considered here for demonstrable purposes.
The average uniform soil pressure is given by

160.57 131.24
q u ,avg
145.9 kN / m 2
2
Total soil reaction = 145.9 (22.4) (5) = 16340.8 kN
Total column loads = 17822 kN
16340.8 17822.5
= 17081.6 kN Average load
2
17081.6
0.958
Column modification factor =
17822.0
17081.6
1.045
Soil pressure modification factor =
16340.9
Average modified soil pressures are 167.8 kN/m2 and
137.2 kN/m2 at points C and L respectively.
Shear force and bending moment diagrams for strip
BDKM are shown in Figures-2 and 3.
q C 160.57 kN / m 2
q L 131.24 kN / m 2
420

3190.1
2334.6
1962.2
585.8
- 481.8
- 2483.2
- 3003.4
- 3040.4
Figure 2 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM (kN)
- 5610.0
- 3520.3
- 2924.6
- 3016.9
- 2848.5
205.2
729.6
2875.0
Figure 3 Bending moment diagram for strip BDKM (kN.m)
It is noticed that while the shear force diagram satisfies

the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction, the
bending moment diagram fails to do so, yielding a bending
moment of 3016.9 kN.m at the end of the strip, instead of
zero.
IV. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE
CONVENTIONAL RIGID METHOD:
In this section three proposed modifications are applied
to the conventional rigid method and shear and bending
moment diagrams are drawn for strip BDKM.
A. First proposed modification:
In this proposed modification, the strip shown in Figure4 is treated as a combined footing with the planar soil
distribution evaluated for the entire mat being ignored.
Therefore, a new soil pressure under mat ends is evaluated
based on the strip columns loads from the following
equation.
Qu Qu e x B/2
q 1,2 ( new )
A
Iy
Figure 4 Strip loads- First proposed modification
Using the above equation, the resultants of the soil

pressure under the strip and the resultant of the columns
loads will have the same line of action. Then, shear force
and bending moment diagrams can be easily constructed.
Modified loads acting on strip BDKM are shown in Figure5.
Qu 3202 6462 5608 2505 17822 KN

Xl
(1)
3202( 0.7 ) 6462( 7.7 ) 5608( 14.7 ) 2550( 21.7 )

10.65m
17822
ex
22.4
10.65 0.55 m
2
A 22.4 5 112 m 2
421

5 22.4 3
4683.1 m 4
12
17822 17822( 0.55 )( 22.4 )( 0.5 )
q1
182.56 kN / m 2
112
46831
17822 17822( 0.55 )( 22.4 )( 0.5 )
q2
135.68 kN / m 2
112
46831
The modified soil pressure and column loads for strip
BDKM are shown in Figure-5.
I
Figure 5 Loads acting on strip BDKM- First proposed modification
Figures 6 and 7 show the shear and bending moment

diagrams, respectively for strip BDKM. One can easily
observe that the equilibrium equations are satisfied for
shear as well as for bending moment.
3518.6
2626
2072.8
636.7
- 477.2
- 2565.3
- 2943.4
- 2982
Figure 6 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM- First proposed modification
(kN)
- 3449.9
- 2921
- 1424.5
223.1
166.7
3048.8
3859.8
Figure 7 Moment diagram for strip BDKM- First proposed modification (kN.m)
B. Second proposed modification:

This includes modifying the columns loads on the strip
only through modification factors for columns loads based
on the planar soil pressure under the entire mat. Two
modification factors are employed in order to make the
resultant of the modified column loads coincide with the
resultant of the soil pressure under the strip. Column loads
situated to the left of the resultant are multiplied by a
modifying factor F1 and column loads situated to the right
of the resultant are multiplied by a second modifying factor
F2 as follows.
Application of the mentioned process on strip BDKM,
shown in Figure-8 is outlined next.
Equation (2) is evaluated through application of static

equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction.
F1 (QLeft ) F2
Right
q q2
) 1
Bi B
2
)2)
Equation (3) is evaluated through application of static

equilibrium
on
summation
of
F1 (QLeft xi ) F2
moments.
422
Right xi
2q q B
q q2
1
Bi B 2 1
2
3 q1 q 2
(3)

Solving equations (2-a) and (3-a) gives
F1 = 0.891 and F2 = 0.948.
The modified column loads are as follows:
Q1 mod = F1 Q1 = 0.891(3202) = 2853 kN
Q2 mod = F1 Q2 = 0.891(6462) = 5757 kN
Q3 mod = F2 Q3 = 0.948(5608) = 5314 kN
Q4 mod = F2 Q4 = 0.948(2550) = 2417 kN
The soil pressure and modified column loads for strip
Figure 8 Strip Loads- Second proposed modification
Solving Equations (2) and (3), the values of F1 and F2

can be easily obtained. Therefore, the shear force and
bending moment diagrams can be constructed.
The column loads on the strip and soil pressure under strip
Substituting in Eqn. (2), one gets
F1 3202 6462 F2 5608 2550

160.6 131.2
(5)(22.4)
2
(2-a)
9664 F1 8158 F2 163409 kN
Figure 9 Loads on strip BDKM based on the second proposed

modification
Substituting in Eqn. (3),
Figures 10 and 11 show the shear and bending moment

diagrams respectively for strip BDKM. One can easily see
that the equilibrium equations are satisfied for shear force,
as well as for bending moment.
F1 (3202 (0.7) 6462 (7.7)) F2 (5608 (14.7) 2550 (21.7))
2 (131.2) 160.6 22.4
16340.9
3 (160.6 131.2)
51998 .8 F1 137772 .6 F2 189164 .7
(3-a)
3134.9
2484.1
1955.5
560.4
- 460.9
- 2292.4
- 2622.4
- 2830.2
Figure 10 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM - Second proposed modification (kN)
423

- 3121.7
- 2704.9
- 1285.1
196.3
161.1
3035.3
3332.1
Figure 11 Moment diagram for strip BDKM - Second proposed modification (kN.m)
C. Third proposed modification:

This proposed modification involves both of the
columns loads on the strip and the applied soil pressure
under the mat. The strip is modified by finding the average
loads required to make the resultant of column loads equal
to and coincide with that of the average loads at mid point
between the influence points of column loads and soil
reaction. Two sets of modifying factors are applied to make
the resultant of the modified column load equal and
coincide with that of the average loads. The first factor will
be applied to column loads on the left side of the resultant
of the modified column loads, while the second factor will
be applied to column loads on the right side of the
resultant. Then, the shear force and bending moment
diagrams can then be constructed.
The loads acting on the strip are shown in Figure-12 and
the process is detailed as follows.
Figure13 Modified loads on strip BDKM-Third proposed

modification
Qtotal Qi 17822 kN
160.6 131.2
Soil reaction (q avg Bi B)
* 5 * 22.4
2
16340.9 kN
Average load
16340.9 17822
17081.5 kN
2
x L 10.65 m and x p 10.82 m,

10.65 10.82
so , x average
10.74 m
2
Substituting in Equations (2) and (3) gives
F1 = 0.945 and F2 = 0.975.
The modified column loads are as follows:
Q1 mod = F1 Q1 = 0.945*3202 = 3026 kN
Q2 mod = F1 Q2 = 0.945*6462 = 6106 kN
Q3 mod = F2 Q3 = 0.975*5608 = 5465 kN
Q4 mod = F2 Q4 = 0.975*2550 = 2485 kN
Figure 12 Loads on strip BDKM before application of the third

proposed modification
Solving Equations (2-a) and (3-a), gives F1 and F2

values.
The modified soil pressure and column modified loads
for strip BDKM are shown in Figures-13 and 14.
And ; q 2 ,mod 133.6 kN / m 2
q 1 ,mod 171.4 kN / m 2
424

Figure 15 and 16 show the shear and bending moment
diagrams respectively for strip BDK M. One can easily
notice that equilibrium equations are satisfied for shear as
well as for bending mo ment
Figure 14. Applied load on the strip BDKM- Third proposed

modification
3324.7
2556.8
2015.4
598
- 469.6
- 2427.5
- 2781.2
- 2908.3
.
Figure 15 Shear force diagram for strip B D K M - Third proposed modification (kN)
- 3284.8
- 2813.4
- 1353.7
164.1
209.5
3047.5
3591.2
Figure 16 Moment diagram for strip B D K M - Third proposed modification (kN.m)
V.
ranges from 0.40 % to 7.78 % compared with the lowerbound solution.
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
From the results obtained from the three modification

procedures it is noticed that the first modification
procedure represents an upper bound solution of the results,
while the second procedure represents a lower bound
solution. Moreover, the third proposed modification
procedure represents an average solution of the first and
second proposed modification procedures. The bending
moments obtained from the three procedures are shown in
Figure-17. The differences in bending moments are shown
in Table-2, where the differences for the upper-bound
solution obtained from the first proposed modification
procedure range from 0.44 % to 15.84 % compared with
the lower-bound solution obtained from the second
modification procedure. Similarly, the average solution
obtained from the third proposed modification procedure
Figure 17 Bending moments obtained from the three modification

procedures for BDKM (kN.m)
425

Table 2
Table-3
Bending moments for Strip BDKM and percentages of

differences among the three solutions
Shear forces for Strip BDKM and percentages of

differences among the three solutions (kN)
Procedure
1st
Proced
ure
2nd
Proced
ure
3rd
Proced
ure
Exte
rior
+ ve
22.3
1
13.6
5%
19.6
3
0%
20.9
5
6.72
%
Exterior
Span (t.m)
Inter
ior
- ve
344.9
9
10.51
%
312.1
7
0%
328.4
8
5.22
%
Inte
rior
+ ve
385.
98
15.8
4%
333.
21
0%
359.
12
7.78
%
Interior Span (t.m)

Inte
rior
- ve
142.
45
10.8
5%
128.
51
0%
135.
37
5.34
%
Inte
rior
+ ve
304.
88
0.44
%
303.
53
0%
304.
75
0.40
%
Ext.
- ve
292.
10
7.99
%
270.
49
0%
281.
34
4.01
%
Exterio
r Span
(t.m)
Proce
dure
Ext.
+ ve
1st
Proce
dure
16.67
3.48%
2nd
Proce
dure
16.11
0%
3rd
Proce
dure
16.41
1.86%
Column No.
2
Rig
Left
ht
63.6
256.
7
53
13.6
11.9
1%
0%
56.0
229.
4
24
0%
0%
59.8
242.
0
75
6.71
5.89
%
%
Column
No. 6
Rig
Left
ht
351. 294.
86
34
12.2 12.2
4%
4%
313. 262.
49
24
0%
0%
332. 278.
47
12
6.05 6.05
%
%
Column
No. 10
Rig
Left
ht
262. 298.
6
2
5.71 5.36
%
%
248. 283.
41
02
0%
0%
255. 290.
68
83
2.93 2.76
%
%
Column
No. 14
Rig
Left
ht
207. 47.7
28
2
5.99 3.54
%
%
195. 46.0
55
9
0%
0%
201. 46.9
54
6
3.06 1.89
%
%
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 18 shows the shear forces obtained from the three

modification procedures. The differences in shear forces
are shown in Table 3, where the differences for the upperbound solution obtained from the first proposed
modification procedure ranges from 3.54 % to 13.61 %
compared with the lower-bound solution obtained from the
second modification procedure. Similarly, the average
solution obtained from the third proposed modification
procedure range from 1.89 % to 6.71 % compared with the
lower-bound solution.
Figure 18 Shear forces obtained from the three modification

procedures for BDKM (kN)
426
The three modification procedures suggested by

the authors for mat foundation design have succeeded
in solving the main problem associated with the
conventional rigid method, which is satisfaction of the
equilibrium equations when constructing shear force
and bending moment diagrams for the individual
strips for the mat.
The three obtained solutions represent lower
bound, average and upper bound solution for shear
forces and bending moments for each individual strip
of the mat.
Since two-way action is ignored in analyzing the
strips, it is recommended that the lower bound
solution associated with modifying column loads only
be used in evaluating shear forces and bending
moments in the strips.
The maximum differences in bending moments
obtained from the three procedures is less than 16 %.
The maximum differences in shear forces obtained
from the three procedures is less than 14 %.

REFERENCES
[1 ] Eden, W., McRostie, G., Hall, J., 1973- Measured
Contact Pressures Below Raft Supporting A stiff
Building, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 10, pp.
180-192.
[2 ] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 3362R,
Suggested Design Procedures for Combined Footing
and Mats (ACI 336.2R-88, Reapproved 2002), Detroit,
Michigan, USA, 2002.
[3 ] Gupta, S., Mat Foundations Design and Analysis with
a Practical Approach, New Age International limited
Publishers, New Delhi, 1997.
[4 ] Teng, W., Foundation Design, Prentice Hall, Prentice
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1962.
[5 ] Natarajan, K., Vidivelli, B., 2009- Effect of Column
Spacing on the Behavior of Frame-Raft and Soil
Systems, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 20,
pp. 3629-3640.
[6 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, USA, 1997.
[7 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed.,
[8 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th ed.,
[9 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, International Edition, 1997.
[10 ]
Das, B., Principles of Foundation Engineering,
PWS Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 1984
[11 ]
Das, B., Principles of Foundation Engineering, 4th
ed., PWS Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,
1999..
[12 ]
American Concrete Institute (ACI). 2008.
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(318-08) and Commentary (318 R-08), Farmington
Hills, Michigan, USA, 2008.
ex ,e y = coordinates of the resultant force relative to the

center of area of the mat
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
F1 = modification factor for column loads located to the
left of the resultant
F2 = modification factor for column loads located to
the right of the
I = moment of inertia of the strip of width Bi
I x , I y = moment of inertia of the area of the mat with
x and
Qu = factored column loads
Qleft = summation of column loads located to the
respect to the
left of the resultant

Q right = summation of column loads located to the
right of the resultant
Qtotal ,mod = modified column loads
qavg ,mod
= modified average soil pressure
X i = coordinate of column load in x-direction,

relative to the point of origin
Yi = coordinate of column load in y-direction, relative
to the point of origin
x , y = coordinate of any given point on the mat with
respect to x and y axes passing through the centroid
of the mat
xl = the distance between Qtotal and the left edge of the
mat strip
xp = the distance between the resultant of average soil
pressure and the left edge of mat strip
xl x p
x average
2
qu ,net = factored net soil pressure
qu ,avg = average factored net soil pressure resultant
NOTATION
A = total area of the mat
B = length of mat strip
Bi = width of mat strip between centers of adjacent
strips
D.L= Column's service dead load
L.L = Column's service live load
= characteristic coefficient = 4
K s Bi
4 Ec I
k s = coefficient of subgrade reaction
427

Samir Shihada is professor in structural

engineering at the department of civil
engineering in the Islamic University of
Gaza. He has extensive experience in
teaching and practicing structural concrete
design where he has published a refereed
book entitled Reinforced Concrete
Design. His research interests include structural concrete
design codes, seismic design and fire-resistant concrete.
Furthermore, he has served on several government
committees dealing with building damage evaluation and
engineering education.
Jehad T. Hamad has a Ph.D. in the field
of
Geotechnical/Geoenvironmental
Engineering
Louisiana
State
University - December 1990. He
worked at Southern Illinois University
and Bir-ziet University. Currently, He
is a member of the Civil Engineering
department at the Islamic University-Faculty of
Engineering. He worked as a consultant engineer in a
number of private and public engineering firms in USA and
Gaza Strip in the field of Geotechnical/Geoenvironment
Engineering.
Dr Hamad has published many papers in field of analysis
and design of landfills, improvement of soils and the
impact on environment
428

Suggested Modifications of The Conventional Rigid Method For Mat Foundation Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suggested Modifications of The Conventional Rigid Method For Mat Foundation Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 4, April 2012)