Home » Forums » Structural Engineers » Activities » Structural engineering general discussion Forum

footing with biaxial moment 4

thread507-236147

I've been looking for a reference as to how to determine the max soil pressure for a footing that has moments in both
directions, but only has partial bearing. The moment in one direction would the load in the kern (if it were the only
moment), and the moment in the other direction would put the load outside the kern. I can't find a reference on this in my
foundations book, and I could go through the math of it (but that would take a REALLY long time, and I honestly don't
want to spend an entire day to figure it out), but I figured someone else has to have done this before.

My first inclination was to take the max pressure of the moment causing partial bearing and adding that to the max
pressure caused by the full bearing (M/S), then I realized that I couldn't us the full S of the footing (for the smaller
moment) because the whole footing isn't in bearing anymore. I tried estimating the amount of the footing that would be in
bearing and using that S. That would get me close, but I'm really trying to be exact because I'm evaluating a
program. The line of zero bearing stress is not perpendicular to either edge of the footing because of the moments in both
directions, but again, I don't know how to address this without a day-long geometry session.

My foundation design textbook has a method for calculating effective widths and lengths for biaxial footings, but the
solutions result in charts that you have to read.

I have attached a link to a website that has an excel spreadsheet with sited references that will do a biaxial footing

http://www.seaofsc.org/Alex's%20Corner.htm

There are various solutions but a trial and error approach as outlined in Peck/Hanson/Thornburg "Foundation Engineering"
(Mine is 2nd ed. -1974 p391) is rather straight-forward.

StructuralEIT:

Any chance of using grade beams to avoid the problem? I always like to KISS the situation, if you know what I mean. Not
that the solution you are looking for is hard, but it could save you concrete in the footing.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

i have worked out eccentricity for both directions. If one will mean pad is non bearing for a length (say due mx) I have
used that bearing pressure in my P/A +- Mx/Zy +- My/Zx formula then for the other way applied the reduced bearing area
to work out my Z in other direction.

Sorry if the symbols are different from USA but you get the idea.

Here's a PDF of my standard mathcad file. The approach is simple. Determine the zone from the eccentricity and then
determine the pressure from the formula for that zone. Unfortunately, I didn't record where this was published (duh), and
the engineer who gave it to me has passed away. If anyone knows where this comes from, I would appreciate that info.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=f5c8bc61-e3ea-4a70-803a-df

As a first approximation, calculate the resultant moment acting on the footing, i.e. the vector sum of the two
moments. Assume the line of zero pressure occurs parallel to the resultant moment (using the right hand rule). Take an
educated guess where the zero pressure line is and determine whether the resulting stress block satisfies both load and
moment. Modify the position of the zero pressure line until load and moment are approximately satisfied.

Then check the moment normal to the resultant vector. If it is not zero, modify the direction of the zero pressure line until
it is close enough.
Best regards,

BA

Last one of these I did I modeled in RISA3D on compression-only springs. Took me all of 20 minutes.

Once you get outside the kern in one or both directions things go haywire for bi-directional bending.

From personal experience, here are my views:

1. As suggested by MSQUARED48, avoid the situation to the best you can.
2. As JLNJ pointed out, use FEM with compression only spring.
3. For personal satisfaction, you can write your own spreadsheet program assuming the footing and soil both are linear
elastic (linear stresses). The difficult part is once a corner has developed negative pressure (uplift), the bearing area is
reduced, and the new bearing area/neutral axes need to be found, its properties re-calculated (quite mathematically
challenging), and load redistributed. The iteration process stops when the footing is fully in bearing.
Have fun.

Well, I'm just evaluating software, so I think it important to check by hand.

StructuralEIT...good point...most states require hand check on the software, or at least same model run through two or
more software programs.

Are we talking about a square footing? Why not give us the load, P also Mx and My and see how we might deal with it?

Best regards,

BA

Do the moments happen at the same time or independently?

If they happen independently, then use the worst case of two conditions, P + Mx and P + My.

If they happen concurrently, then resolve the moments to a Mxy and rotate the square footing to the axis of the combined
moment, allowing a solution similar to a simple P + M solution for inside or outside of the kern.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

The moments are concurrent. These are all service loads using the appropriate load combinations.
P=20k
Mx=88k-ft
My=4k-ft

The shears are already included in the moments (that's why they're not included above), and the footing weight is included
in P (at the appropriate DL factor). The progam is spitting out a 10'x10'x2'thick footing.

I can get within 100 psf (of the max bearing pressure spit out by the program) using the method I stated above, but I'd
really like to use a more rational approach and see where I get.

can someone convert k to kg or KN for me and tell you what I get using spreadsheet

That size seems about right. qmax = 2.36ksf is what I'm getting with that size footing.

Willis, can you try it with P = 20.818k, Mx=87.842 k-ft, and My=4.226k-ft?
When I add in the weight of the footing, P = 50 kips. The My moment is so small it is basically negligible. And so q =
2P/3aB = 1.03 ksf. I think you can make the footing smaller.

For those cases where the biaxial moments are both large, I use the graph on page 133 of Foundation Design by Teng.

DaveAtkins

my P had the footing weight added in already. I think I noted that in the post.

1.89ksf

I get about 1.9ksf also.

Interesting. I come up with 1.88ksf and the program is spitting out 1.93 ksf. That seems close enough to me, it's just that
my method involves a very "non-engineering" type estimation, which I really hate to use.

I think you are using the wrong shape of footing. Why not elongate it in the direction of the larger moment? That should
permit a reduction in footing area. Even better, if possible, use a combined footing so that the loads are balancing each
other.

herewegothen,

You've got to be kidding, right?

Best regards,

BA

BA-
I'm just trying to verify what the program is spitting out, nothing more. There may be a time when this comes up in a job
and I want to trust the program when it does.

StructuralEIT,

Okay...no offense intended.

Best regards,

BA

none taken.

There still seems to be something wrong with the results you guys are getting. First of all, a 10'x10'x2' footing weighs
approximately 30 kips. I don't know what you mean by "an appropriate DL factor" but, for the sake of the problem, let us
say that:

P = 20k

Mx = 88k-ft

Assume that My = 0 for now.

The eccentricity in the x direction is 88/20 = 4.4', so for a 10'x10' footing, the effective length of bearing on the soil is (5 -
4.4)3 = 1.8' and the effective width is 10'.
The soil pressure has a triangular distribution. Average pressure = 20/(10*1.8) = 1.11 ksf. Maximum pressure is 2.22
ksf. Minimum pressure is zero. So far, we have said that My = 0.

If My = 4k-ft, surely the maximum pressure will increase slightly, so the maximum pressure by my calculation is
approximately 2.22 + 0.13 = 2.35 ksf.

Am I misinterpreting the problem?

Best regards,

BA

If the controlling load combination is 0.6DL-W, then you need to multiply the ftg weight by 0.6 - that's what I meant by
"the appropriate DL factor".
I did tweak the original loads I gave a little to be exact, see the later post.

So, are we all in agreement that the maximum soil pressure with the given loading is in the order of 2.35 ksf, not 1.9
ksf? If not, then I still do not understand how you arrive at the maximum pressure.

Best regards,

BA

I agree with myself. =)

The 10' X 10' X 2' footing weighs 30 k

the soil above it weighs about 16.28 k for bearing depth at 3.5' below grade.

If total P = 20 k, then is there an uplift load on the footing?

chichuck

chicuck,
No, there is no uplift on the footing. The axial load from the column (for the controlling load combination of 0.6DL-W is
2.818k. While the weight of the footing is 30k, you can only use 18k (because the load combination is 0.6DL-W), hence
the TOTAL P=18k+2.818=20.818K (as noted in an earlier post). I am not considering any soil overburden on the footing
(whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant to what I am trying to do), I can specifiy overburden in the program, but all I
want to do is verify that any situation that the program is faced with will be done correctly.

BA,
No, the max pressure is around 1.9ksf (for P=20.818, Mx=87.842k-ft, and My=4.226k-ft).

For the loads that were specified, the formulas I attached in my earlier post match WillisV's results exactly. Although the
PDF is a printout of a Mathcad file, all the formulas are shown, and can easily be followed in a hand calc.

Using the revised values of 20.818k and 87.842k-ft, I would agree that the maximum pressure is in the order of 1.9 ksf.

If the original values of 20k and 88k-ft are used, the maximum pressure is in the order of 2.35 ksf.

This indicates that the footing is extremely sensitive to minor changes in load which suggests to me that this would be a
very bad design, no matter what your computer program tells you.

One point to note is that the factor of safety against overturning is only 20.818*5/87.842 = 1.185 which is completely
inadequate by any standard.

Best regards,

BA

I don't think that is such a bad safety factor for OT when you consider that it is the 0.6DL-W load combination.
That's actually better than 1.5 for 1.0DL and wind.

Well, I agree with you on that point. The 0.6 factor is certainly not in my code (Alberta Building Code) and from your latest
comments, it would appear that you don't take it very seriously either.

Best regards,

BA

I never design a footing to land outside the kern distance. Several geotech books I have seen recommend not doing this
either.

I would generally agree with not having a footing with partial bearing, but sometimes you could end up with footing with
huge plan dimensions and/or much thicker than they need to be.

haynewp, what you say makes sense if it is a permanent load, but it is a bit conservative if you are looking at overturning
from wind load.

Are you implying that because by a short term nature of wind thought?

Yes,

The only reason why it may not be a good idea for partial loading is because of settlement. For settlement you need more
time than a gust of wind takes.

I can see that but I could also see compaction ocurring at the toe from a footing rocking back and forth under wind to
create increasing deflections. But this is better answered by a geotech in my opinion, you may be right because it is not
really my cup of tea.

miecz-

I'm looking a little more closely at the sheet you posted. I'm having a hard time following some things. For example, in
the bearing pressure calcs, what is "S"? Also, for the Zone II calcs, it has ey in the denominator (which is 0), but the f2
value is the same as I would get by hand (but the equations shown don't work out because of the 0 in the
denominator). What is the px in the Zone II calcs?

Risafoot will solve this problem using FEM.

The AASHTO Code has a method for coming up with the qmax as well. See Figure 4.4.7.1.1.1C in the 17th Edition.

I am not sure if the same figure appears in the new one (LRFD only). I think it is strange that the code includes this figure
because elsewhere in the code they do not permit bridge foundations to be loaded outside the kern...

On another note, we design sign and billboard foundations often enough, and it is entirely uneconomical to design a spread
foundation with the resultant within the kern for wind load. It would irresponsible of an engineer to require the load to
remain within the kern in such a circumstance.

StructuralEIT-

The "S" used in the bearing pressure calculations, has no name, it's simply a variable defined by the formula.

You're right, ey is 0. To avoid dividing by zero, I've adjusted ey (and ex) by ε, as shown in the formulas on sheet 1. ε is
defined as .001 feet, but that definition is not shown anywhere on the printout.

px is the soil pressure at the center of the footing, if Mx=0k'. I use px to calculate the bending moment at the center of
the footing, where I believe it is maximum.

Again, I don't know where the soil pressure formulation comes from. I got it at least 20 years ago and have verified it
against many other sources over those 20 years. It is always dead on.

miecz- Thanks.

miecz and willis-

Would it be possible for both of you to plug in the following loads in your respective sheets and tell me what you get?
footing is 9'x9'x2' (but the self weight of the footing is already figured into P - using the 0.6DL factor)
P=18.632K
Mx=71.52k-ft
My=5.646k-ft

Using miecz's formulas I'm coming up with 2306psf (which is roughly what I would expect), but this program I'm checking
is showing 3380psf (almost 50% higher). I found another method that I was trying out, but that's only giving me 1330psf
(which is way too low, so I'm throwing that out).

With only P and Mx, the eccentricity is 3.84', or 0.66' from the edge of the footing. With a triangular distribution of
pressure, the effective width of the footing is 3 * 0.66 = 1.98' and the maximum pressure = 2.09 ksf.

Now, considering My = 5.64k' and a section modulus of S of 1.98*9^2/6 = 26.7 for the effective portion of the footing, the
additional stress is M/S = 0.21 ksf.

Adding the two together gives 2.30 ksf.

Best regards,

BA

Just a reminder, by reading your loads, the resultant force is outside the kern w/r to x-axis (ex = Mx/p > middle third), the
footing is not fully engage in bearing, and its geometric properties have changed.

Here you go.

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=264a51f8-3a9c-4bac-967b-98

kslee- No kidding?! That's been the whole point of this post. It's a piece of cake if there's full bearing.

miecz-
I'd give you a second star if I could. Thanks!

StructuralEIT:
If you have done hand calculation by defining principle axes, you will know you haven't found/confirmed the maximum
stress yet.

What?

2.31

Thanks Willis. I am trusting the formulas for miecz's sheet, but does anyone have an idea where they come from?

If you have located the principle nutral axis, the area remains in compression is trapezoidal, all forces are shifted as well as
the stresses. Check the P/A term, it should reveal something.

The AASHTO Standard Specs have Figure 4.4.7.1.1.1C to solve this kind of problem. It comes from the old AREA Railway
Manual. It gives the same results, but, because it is a graphical solution, it gives information that formulas do
not. Specifically, with the loads and dimensions you have, the bearing pressure is very sensitive to small changes in
vertical load or eccentricity. Just reducing P 6% to 17.56 kips raises the bearing pressure to 3380 psf. Could your program
be fiddling with your input?

The graph and formulii look like the exact same ones that i found in an old foundations text.

They can be back checked when you realise that the resulant is a triangular area with a stress increasing from zero to the
maximum in the corner of the footing.

It is really just a geometrical problem with the same principles as the 2d case. e.g. centre of reaction = centre of loads
e.t.c.

csd-

Can you tell me what text that was?

I know it is a geometric exercise (and not difficult to work through), but is very time consuming to work through from
scratch.

The book was 'Foundation Design' By Wayne C Teng, Prentice Hall 1962.

That book is going for $325.00 online. Is there any chance you have those pages scanned?

It must be out of print as it is selling as a collectors item. I see no issue with providing copies of 46 year old out of print
books so I will scan and post it on Monday.

Awesome! Thanks!

Hey! I mentioned the Teng text way back at the beginning of this thread (on January 29).

No one gave me a star

DaveAtkins

Dave-
You're right. Here you go.

The AASHTO spec does give equations that are less straightforward, but will get you the answer. I'm anxious to see the
equations out of the Teng text.
Here is one way to do it.

On the attached sketch, Vol. abcd is the volume under the stress block.

Cx and Cy are measured from the edge of footing to the centroid of the stress block.

h is the height at point a.

kh is height at point c.
0 is the height at b, c and e.

Using Excel, one can experiment with different x and k values until Cx = A/2 - P/Mx and Cy = A/2 - P/My.

Finally, calculate "h" to satisfy the equation that the volume under the stress block is equal to P, the applied load.

Best regards,

BA

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=f4e03566-ee8e-4ad6-a7e9-01

Oops, I meant to say:

until Cx = A/2 - Mx/P and Cy = A/2 - My/P.

Best regards,

BA

Is there anyone that has the Teng text who can scan and post the relevant pages?

I have a copy of Teng at home. I'll bring it in and scan it in the morning.

If anyone is interested, the RISAFoot program (even the free Demo version) provides information that can be used to verify
a bi-axial soil bearing profile.

That program will show you the soil bearing pressure at each of the 4 corners and will also display the distace from the
point of maximum compression to the neutral axis location.

If you know that information it is not all that difficult to verify that the total pressure load equals the applied vertical load. I
did this for one of our users yesterday. It takes me awhile to remember how to do the integration, but once I remember
then it's not that bad.

You can even use this same information to verify that the centroid of the soil pressure corresponds to the load eccentricity
location. But, the integration gets more complicated, and I tend to "guesstimate" it for my hand calculations instead.

In the attached diagram, the pressure at corner b and d is zero. The pressure at c is k times the pressure at a, namely
h. The volume abcd is actually a truncated triangular pyramid, so can be expressed as abe - cde. The volume and
centroid of a regular pyramid is well known, so no need to integrate.

The procedure is to guess at x and k and iterate to a correct solution such that Cx and Cy correspond to the known location
of the load P. When this has been found, the highest pressure, h (at point a) can be found by equating the volume of abcd
to applied load P.

A bit messy, but it can be done.

Best regards,

BA

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=c96af9cf-a458-4aa9-9104-d8

Attached is Chapter 6.9 from Foundation Design by Teng, 1962. So I guess I'm showing my age, from the end of the "slide
rule era".
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=1b21dc49-e30b-492e-bcfb-b2

Bendog,

Thanks for sharing this. It is is a very comprehensive treatment of the subject of eccentric loads on rectangular footings.

By the way, my solution given in my last post agrees precisely with Case III from Teng.

Best regards,

BA

Viewing the soil pressure as a truncated pyramid makes it seem so easy.... At least in comparison to all the integration that
I've been doing.

Now I'm embarassed that I never made that connection. But, am very thankful to BAretired (and EngTips in general) for
showing me the light. :)

Thanks!

JoshPlum,

There is one slight disadvantage to the truncated pyramid model. That is, when My = 0, k is 1.0 and the expressions for
Cx and Cy become indeterminate (0/0).

With the Teng model, D and A may be evaluated when R is 1.0.

Of course, when My is zero, it is not biaxial moment?

Best regards,

BA

StructuralEIT, I don't know if this would influence your decision, but I found the book by Teng for about $150 here:

http://www.alibris.com/

Its used of course, but I have usually found their prices to be somewhat lower than others. Never actually bought from
them before though. Just search "Teng Foundation" in the books tab.

Explosion Welding Process

Applications: the chemical, petroleum, power, food and
many other industrial production

Join | Advertise
 Copyright © 1998-2019 engineering.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without expressed written permission. Registration
on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Privacy Policy.