BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

CHAPTER 15
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

15.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 15-1

15.2 COMMON TYPES OF SPREAD FOOTINGS FOR BRIDGES................................... 15-1
15.3 PROPORTIONING AND EMBEDMENT OF FOOTINGS ......................................... 15-1
15.3.1 Sizing of Spread Footings ................................................................................ 15-2
15.3.2 Embedment and Depth of Footings .................................................................. 15-2
15.4 DESIGN LOADS ........................................................................................................... 15-3
15.5 BEARING STRESS DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................... 15-3
15.6 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 15-5
15.6.1 Settlement Check.............................................................................................. 15-5
15.6.2 Bearing Check .................................................................................................. 15-5
15.6.3 Eccentricity Limits ........................................................................................... 15-6
15.6.4 Sliding Check ................................................................................................... 15-6
15.7 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF FOOTINGS ................................................................... 15-7
15.8 DESIGN EXAMPLE..................................................................................................... 15-7
15.8.1 Bridge Footing Data ......................................................................................... 15-7
15.8.2 Design Requirements ....................................................................................... 15-9
15.8.3 Footing Thickness Determination .................................................................. 15-10
15.8.4 Calculation of Factored Loads ....................................................................... 15-11
15.8.5 Footing Size Determination .......................................................................... 15-14
15.8.6 Flexural Design ............................................................................................. 15-21
15.8.7Shear Design ................................................................................................... 15-24
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 15-27
NOTATION ............................................................................................................................. 15-29
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 15-30

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-i

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

This page is intentionally left blank.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-ii

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

CHAPTER 15
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

15.1 INTRODUCTION
Shallow foundations (spread footings) are advantageous to pile foundations
considering lower cost, easier construction, and fewer environmental constraints.
However, weak soil and seismic considerations may limit use of spread footings and
impact the foundation type selection.

In general, size of the spread footing is determined based on bearing resistance of

the supporting soil or rock and also permissible level of settlement. Design of spread
footings requires constant communication between the Structural Designer (SD) and
the Geotechnical Designer (GD) throughout the design process. Factored loads are
provided by the SD and factored resistance for the supporting soil and rock, that is
permissible net contact stress qpn and factored gross nominal bearing resistance qR are
calculated and reported by the GD. The structural design is performed by the SD.
Consistency between the SD and the GD in the use of required gross or net stresses is
important. Caltrans Memo to Designers (MTD) 4-1 (Caltrans, 2014b) provides
general guidance on design process and also the minimum level of required
communications between the SD and the GD. The analysis and design of a spread
footing based on the 6th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO, 2012) and the California Amendments (Caltrans, 2014a), and Seismic
Design Criteria (SDC) Version 1.7 (Caltrans, 2013), will be illustrated through an
example.

15.2 COMMON TYPES OF SPREAD FOOTINGS FOR BRIDGES

Spread footings can be used as isolated footings to support single columns or as
combined footings to support multi-columns when columns are closely spaced.
Elongated spread footings under abutments and pier walls act as strip footings where
moments act only in the short direction. Strip footings under abutments or piers can
be analyzed and designed similar to column footings, with moments acting in one
direction only.

15.3 PROPORTIONING AND EMBEDMENT OF FOOTINGS

The designer should consider several parameters such as axial force and biaxial
moment acting on the footing, right of way, existing structures, and also depth of
footing when selecting size and location of the footing. Although square footings are

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-1

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

more common for footings supporting pinned columns, rectangular shapes may be
more efficient when column is fixed at the base, since moments acting on the footing
in two directions may be very different. Considering various load combinations
specified in AASHTO (2012) and Caltrans (2014a), and variation of geotechnical
resistances with eccentricities of loads acting on the footing any type of optimization
can be rigorous.

15.3.1 Sizing of Spread Footings

The trial minimum size of the spread footing can be selected based on footings of
similar conditions and past experience. Size of a spread footing is usually governed
by the column size, magnitude of loads acting on the footing, and resistances of the
substrate. The effective length to effective width (L/B) ratio is commonly 1.0 ~ 2.0.
The GD should be consulted for selection of the ratios. The allowable settlement will
be assumed as 1 in. or 2 in. according to MTD 4-1 (Caltrans, 2014b) and based on
continuity of the superstructure. Larger limits can be used if structural analysis shows
that the superstructure can tolerate such settlement without adverse serviceability
impacts (Caltrans, 2014a).
The footing size is usually proportioned based on permissible net contact
stress at the service limit state and checked for factored gross nominal bearing
resistance at strength and extreme event limit states.
These stresses are functions of the effective width as well as the effective length
to effective width ratio, therefore they are presented by a family of curves and also a
table as shown in the design example. The SD needs to use double interpolation to
extract the information required for design under different load combinations using
corresponding effective dimensions. If necessary, the GD may be contacted to revise
the information and provide a new set of curves and tables to avoid extrapolation.

15.3.2 Embedment and Depth of Footings

The footing embedment shall be carefully determined for degradation and

contraction scour for the base (100 year) flood, as well as short term scour depth. The
embedment depth of the footing should be adequate to ensure the top of the footing is
not exposed when total scour has occurred, as shown in Figure 15.3-1. If the footing
is not in water and freezing is not of concern, a minimum cover of 2 to 3 ft is
recommended.

Degradation,
Degradation, contraction,
contraction
andand
local local
pier scour depth.
pier scour depth

Figure 15.3-1 Minimum Embedment for Scour Protection

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-2

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

The depth (thickness) of the footing is preliminary selected based on the required
development length of the column reinforcement and then designed for flexural and
shear strength.

15.4 DESIGN LOADS

The factored shear forces (Vx and Vy), column axial force (P) and bending
moments (Mx and My) resulting from structural analysis are usually reported at the
base of the column and must be transferred to the bottom of the footing in order to
calculate contact bearing stresses. Therefore, the resultant moment at the base of the
columns must be modified to include the additional moment caused by shear force
transfer. The modified moment in a generic format can be written as M + (Vdfooting),
where dfooting is the actual footing depth.

15.5 BEARING STRESS DISTRIBUTION

The sign convention shown in MTD 4-1 (Caltrans, 2014b) is to avoid mistakes in
communications between the SD and the GD. The footing local X axis is defined
along the longer dimension of the footing (L), and the Y axis along the short
dimensions (B) as shown in Figure 15.5-1. Forces and moments resulting from
superstructure analysis acting at the column base are resolved in the directions of
local axes if local axes do not coincide longitudinal and transverse directions of the
bridge.

Bearing stress distribution depends on relative stiffness of the footing and

supporting soil and rock. For determination of the footing size based on the bearing
resistance and settlement requirements, the bearing stress is assumed to be uniformly
distributed for footings on soil and linearly distributed for footings on rock. For
structural design of the footing, bearing stress is assumed to be linearly distributed.

For eccentrically loaded footings on soil, the effective footing dimensions

(B and L) specified in AASHTO Article 10.6.1.3 (AASHTO, 2012) shall be used for
design of settlement and bearing resistance. Bearing stress distribution over effective
footing area is assumed to be uniform. The effective dimensions for a rectangular
footing are shown in Figure 15.5.1 and shall be taken as follows:
B B 2 e y
(AASHTO 10.6.1.3-1)
L L 2 ex
where:
B, L = actual dimensions of the footing (ft)
ey, ex = eccentricities parallel to dimensions B and L, respectively (ft)
A = reduced effective area of the footing =B L (ft2)
q = uniform bearing stress = P/A (ksf)

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-3

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Y
L
L/2

Reduced
effective
Point of load B
area
applicatioon
ey
B'
B/2

ex
L'

Figure 15.5-1 Effective Footing Area

For footings on rock and for structural design of footings, the bearing stress is
assumed to be linearly distributed. If the eccentricity is less than B/6 (or L/6) the
maximum bearing stress is calculated as:

P My M
qmax x (15.5-1)
A Sy Sx
where:
P = vertical force acting at the center of gravity of the bottom of the footing
area (kip)
Mx, My = moments acting at the bottom of the footing about X and Y directions,
respectively (kip-ft)
Sx, Sy = section modulus of the footing area about X and Y directions,
respectively (ft3)
A = actual footing area = B L (ft2)

Equation (15.5-1) is valid only if stresses calculated at corners of the footing are
all positive (compression), otherwise the reduced contact area of footing must be
determined and rocking must be considered in analysis.

Bearing stresses can be calculated as net or gross. The weight of the footing
and all overburden soil from top of the footing to finished grade must be included
when calculating gross bearing stress. The weight of overburden soil between
bottom of footing and original grade at excavation time is subtracted from gross
bearing stress to calculate net bearing stress. Net bearing stress under AASHTO
Service I Load Combination is used to evaluate footing settlement.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-4

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

15.6 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

The bearing stresses calculated under various AASHTO LRFD limit states must
be checked against acceptable stresses provided by the GD. After receiving
foundation information and scour data (if applicable), the GD will provide
permissible net contact stress used for Service Limit States checks, and factored
gross nominal bearing resistance used for Strength and Extreme Event Limit States
checks, respectively. The stresses are functions of the effective width as well as
effective length to effective width ratio, therefore information will be provided as a
family of data points for different values of L/B ratios for a given B. The SD needs
to use double interpolation to extract the information required for design under
different load combinations using corresponding effective dimensions. If necessary,
the GD may be contacted to revise the information and provide a new set of curves
and table to avoid extrapolation.

15.6.1 Settlement Check

For Service Limit State, the following requirement must be met:

qn,u q pn for footing on soil (15.6-1)

qn, amx q pn for footing on rock (15.6-2)

where
qpn = permissible net contact stress provided by the GD and calculated based
on a specified allowable settlement (ksf)
qn,u = net uniform bearing stress calculated using Service-I Limit State loads
assuming uniform stress distribution for footings on soil (ksf)
qn,max = net maximum bearing stress calculated using Service-I Limit State loads
assuming linear stress distribution for footings on rock (ksf)

15.6.2 Bearing Check

For Strength and Extreme Event Limit States, the design requirement is written
as:
qg ,u qR for footing on soil (15.6-3)
qg , max qR for footing on rock (15.6-4)
where:
qg,u = gross bearing stress calculated based on uniform stress distribution for
footings on soil (ksf)
qg,max = gross maximum bearing stress calculated based on linear stress
distribution for footings on rock (ksf)
qR = factored gross nominal bearing resistance provided by the GD = bqn
(ksf)
qn = gross nominal bearing resistance (ksf)
b = resistance factor

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-5

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

15.6.3 Eccentricity Limits

The eccentricity limits for Service and Extreme Event Limit States specified in
AASHTO (2012) and Caltrans (2014a) are summarized as:

Table 15.6-1 AASHTO (2012) Eccentricity Limits

AASHTO
Limit State Footing on Soil Footing on Rock
Article Number
Service B/6 or L/6 B/4 or L/4 10.5.2.2
Extreme Event 10.6.4.2 and
B/3 or L/3 B/3 or L/3
(Seismic ) EQ=0 11.6.5.1
Extreme Event 10.6.4.2 and
2B/5 or 2L/5 2B/5 or 2L/5
(Seismic ) EQ=1.0 11.6.5.1

Note: Seismic forces should be applied in all directions per SDC (Caltrans
2013). It is not necessary to include live load (design or permit truck)
in Extreme Event Limit State load combinations therefore EQ = 0.

15.6.4 Sliding Check

Shear force acting at the interface of footing and substrate should be calculated
and compared to the factored nominal sliding resistance specified as:
RR Rn R ep Rep (AASHTO 10.6.3.4-1)

The contribution of soil passive pressure (second term) is generally negligible

and equation is summarized to RR = Rn = R . For cohesionless soil R is written
as:
R V tan (AASHTO 10.6.3.4-2)
where:
R = nominal sliding resistance between soil and concrete (kip)
V = total force acting perpendicular to the interface (kip)
= friction angle at interface of footing and soil = f, internal friction angle
of the drained soil for concrete cast against soil (degree)
= resistance factor against sliding = 0.8 for cast-in-place concrete against
sand (AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1).

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-6

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

15.7 STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF FOOTINGS

Structural design of the footing includes the following steps:
Select footing thickness based on required development length of the column
reinforcement
Design flexural reinforcement in both directions considering minimum
reinforcement required for shrinkage and temperature
Check thickness of the footing for one-way and two-way shears and design
shear reinforcement if required
Check seismic details per Caltrans SDC (Caltrans, 2013a) and other practice
manuals

Table 15.7-1 provides highlights of requirements for structural design of the

footings specified in AASHTO (2012) and Caltrans (2014a). Application of these
requirements will be illustrated in the design example.

Table 15.7-1 AASHTO (2012) and Caltrans (2014a) Requirements for

Structural Design of Footings

Topic AASHTO Articles Application

Strut & tie
5.6.3 Requirement check
Applicability
Flexural design 5.7.3.2 Reinforcement design
Footing depth and
Direct shear design 5.8.3.3
reinforcement design
Shear friction 5.8.4 Shear key design
5.7.3.3,
Reinforcement
5.7.3.4 Design and detailing
spacing
5.10.3, 5.10.8
Reinforcement Structural design of
5.11.2
development footings
Footing depth and
Concrete cover 5.12.3
detailing
Footings 5.13.3 Footing depth

15.8 DESIGN EXAMPLE

15.8.1 Bridge Footing Data

Design process for a bridge bent spread footing is illustrated through the
following example. A circular column of 6 ft diameter with 26#14 main rebars, and
#8 hoops spaced at 5 in. is used for a two-span post-tensioned box girder bridge.
Footing as shown in Figure 15.8-1 rests in cohesionless soil with internal friction

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-7

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

angle of 38o. Original ground (OG) elevation is 48 ft, finished grade (FG) elevation is
48 ft, and bottom footing elevation (BOF) is 39 ft.
Concrete material f c 3,600 psi
Reinforcement fy = 60,000 psi (A706 steel).
Governing unfactored live load forces at the base of the column are listed in
Table 15.8-1.
Unfactored dead load and seismic forces at the base of the column are listed
in Table 15.8-2.
Plastic moment and shear applied at the column base are:
Mp = 15,573 kip-ft; Vp = 716 kips
Overturning column axial force in transverse push is 992 kips.
Note: To facilitate communications of the SD and the GD, local coordinate of
foundation have been defined as X and Y. As shown in Figure 15.8-2a. Local X axis is
parallel to long dimension plan of footing (L) and the local Y axis is perpendicular to
X. The global coordinates L (Longitudinal) and T (Transverse) are commonly used
for bridge analysis. The structural designer needs to transfer forces and moments
acting on the footing to shear forces and moments acting in local coordinates. All
communications between the SD and the GD shall be based on forces/moments
calculated in local coordinates of the footing. In this example local and global
coordinates coincide, that is X = T and Y = L. Therefore, local and global coordinates
may have been used interchangeable, as shown in Figure 15.8-2b.

Bottom of footing
elevation = 39 ft
Bottom of footing
elevation = 39 feet.

Figure 15.8-1 Elevation of the Spread Footing

Table 15.8-1 Unfactored Live Load Forces at Column Base

Load HL-93 Truck Permit Truck

Case I II III I II III
MT (kip-ft) -206 -40 -80 -348 19 34
ML (kip-ft) 250 1,456 552 171 2,562 354
P (kip) 217 238 479 367 439 760
VT (kip) -12 -1 -2 -16 4 7
VL (kip) 12 81 26 8 144 17

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-8

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Table 15.8-2 Unfactored Dead Load and Seismic Forces

Applied at Column Base

Load Case DC DW PS Seismic-I Seismic-II

(Mp applied) (Mp applied)
MT (kip-ft) 62 9 0 15,574 0
ML (kip-ft) 833 139 -14 0 15,574
P (kip) 1,503 227 -21 992 0
VT (kip) 4 1 0 716 0
VL (kip) 44 7 -16 0 716

L Y

B X

L>B
(a) General Case
Y=L

ML

MT
B = LT X=T

L = LT
(b) Example Problem

Figure 15.8-2 Local Footing Coordinates vs.

Global Structure Coordinates
Upon calculation of effective dimensions under any load combination, the larger effective
dimension is designated as L and smaller as B to calculate qpn and qR from information
provided by the GD.

15.8.2 Design Requirements

Perform the following design portion for the footing in accordance with the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition (AASHTO, 2012) with the
California Amendments (Caltrans, 2014a), and design peak ground acceleration
(PGA) = 0.6g .

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-9

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Determine the minimum footing thickness required to develop the column

reinforcement. (Assume #9 bars for footing bottom reinforcement)
Calculate LRFD factored forces for Service, Strength, and Extreme Event
limit states applicable to footing design
Determine the minimum size of the square footing adequate for applicable
LRFD limit states
Calculate required rebar spacing if #5 and #9 bars are used for top and
bottom mats, respectively
Check footing thickness for one-way and two-way shears

15.8.3 Footing Thickness Determination

Minimum footing thickness is equal to the minimum clearance from the bottom
of footing to the bottom mat of footing reinforcement, plus the deformed diameters of
the bars used for the bottom of footing reinforcement, plus the required development
length of the main column reinforcement.
dmin. = clr. + 2(db) + ld (15.8-1)
where:
dmin. = minimum footing thickness (ft)
clr. = minimum clearance from the bottom of footing to the bottom mat of
footing reinforcement (in.)
db = nominal diameter of bar used for the bottom of footing reinforcement
(in.)
ld = required development length of the main column reinforcement (in.)
From AASHTO Table 5.12.3-1, clr. = 3 in., and for #9 bars, db = 1.25 in. The
development length is calculated in accordance with AASHTO Articles 5.11.2.2, and
5.11.2.4.

Development of Deformed Bars in Compression:

ldb 0.63 (1.693)(60) / (3.6)0.5 = 33.7 in. (AASHTO 5.11.2.2.1-1)
ldb 0.3(1.693)(60) = 30.5 in. (AASHTO 5.11.2.2.1-2)
AASHTO Article 5.11.2.2.2 states that the basic development length may be
multiplied by applicable modification factors, and requires that reinforcement is
enclosed within a spiral of not less than 0.25 in. in diameter and spaced at not more
than a 4 in. pitch, in order to use modification factor of 0.75. This reduction does not
apply because we have the main column hoops spaced at 5 inches.

Hooks shall not be considered effective in developing bars in compression,

therefore, development length required for compression is equal to 33.7 inches.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-10

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Development of Standard Hooks in Tension

lhb = 38.0 (1.693) / (3.6)0.5 = 33.9 in. (AASHTO 5.11.2.4.1-1)
Basic development length shall be multiplied by applicable modification factors
(AASHTO 5.11.2.4.2).

Concrete Cover For #11 bar and smaller, side cover (normal to plane of hook)
not less than 2.5 in., and for a 90 degree hook cover on bar extension beyond the
hook not less than 2 in., then modification factor = 0.70.

Note - For determining modification factors, the specifications refer to the

portion of the bar from the critical section to the bend as the hook, and the portion
of the bar from the bend to the end of the bar as the extension beyond the hook.

Ties or Stirrups Hooks for #11 bar and smaller, enclosed vertically or
horizontally within ties or stirrup-ties spaced along the full development, ldh, at a
spacing not greater than 3db, where db is diameter of hooked bar, then modification
factor = 0.80.

None of the modification factors are applied, since #14 bars have been used for
columns, therefore, development length of standard hooks in tension = 33.9 in. say 34
in. (Also greater than 81.693 in. and 6 in.).

Development length for tension (34 in.), controls over the development length for
compression (33.7 in.). The required footing thickness is calculated as:
dmin. = clr. + 2(db) + ld = 3 + 2(1.25) + 34 = 39.5 in. = 3.29 ft
Try footing thickness dfooting = 4.0 ft

15.8.4 Calculation of Factored Loads

Considering live load movements in the longitudinal and transverse directions,

the following three cases of live load forces have been considered in this example:
Case I) Maximum Transverse Moment (MT) and associated effects
Case II) Maximum Longitudinal Moment (ML) and associated effects
Case III) Maximum Axial Force (P) and associated effects
Moments and shears at the column base must be transferred to the bottom of the
footing for the footing design. The following unfactored forces are obtained to
include the additional moment (Vdfooting) caused by shear force transfer.
For example, HL-93 Truck Load Case I,
Forces applied at the column base are:
MT = - 206 kip-ft
VT = -12 kip

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-11

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

For the footing thickness dfooting = 4 ft, forces applied at the bottom of footing are
obtained as follows:
MT = - 206 + (-12)(4) = -254 kip-ft
VT = -12 kip
The unfactored live load forces (without impact) at the bottom of the footing are
calculated in Table 15.8-3.

Table 15.8-3 Unfactored Live Load Forces at Bottom of Footing

Load HL-93 Truck Permit Truck

Case I II III I II III
MT (kip-ft) - 254 - 44 - 88 - 412 35 62
ML (kip-ft) 298 1,780 656 203 3,138 422
P (kip) 217 238 479 367 439 760
VT (kip) -12 -1 -2 - 16 4 7
VL (kip) 12 81 26 8 144 17

The design for live loads for Case-III (both HL-93 and Permit Trucks) is only
illustrated in this example, however all three cases need to be considered in practice.
Forces and moments resulting from seismic analysis in transverse and longitudinal
directions are also shown as Seismic-I and Seismic-II, respectively.

As PGA > 0.5g shallow foundation will be designed for column plastic hinging,
(rocking is not allowed). For the footing thickness dfooting = 4 ft, overstrength moment
and shear applied at the bottom of the footing are calculated as:
Mo = 1.2 [ 15,574 + (716)(4)] = 22,126 kip-ft
VTo = 1.2( 716) = 859 kip
The unfactored dead load forces and seismic forces at the bottom of the footing
are shown in Table 15.8-4.

Table 15.8-4 Unfactored Forces Applied at Bottom of Footing

Load Case DC DW PS Seismic-I Seismic-II

(Mo applied) (Mo applied)
MT (kip-ft) 78 13 0 22,126 0
ML (kip-ft) 1,009 167 -78 0 21,126
P (kip) 1,503 227 -21 992 0
VT (kip) 4 1 0 859 0
VL (kip) 44 7 -16 0 859

The LRFD load combinations (AASHTO, 2012) used in foundation design and
corresponding load factors (AASHTO Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2) are summarized in

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-12

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Table 15.8-5. The upper and lower limits of permanent load factors (p) are shown as
U and L, respectively.

Table 15.8-5 Load Factors for Footing Design

Load DC DW PS EV HL-93 P-15 EQ

Strength I-U 1.25 1.5 1.00 1.35 1.75 - -
Strength I-L 0.90 0.65 1.00 0.90 1.75 - -
Strength II-U 1.25 1.50 1.00 1.35 - 1.35 -
Strength II-L 0.90 0.65 1.00 0.90 - 1.35 -
Strength III-U 1.25 1.50 1.00 1.35 - - -
Strength III-L 0.90 0.65 1.00 0.90 - - -
Strength V-U 1.25 1.5 1.00 1.35 1.35 - -
Strength V-L 0.9 0.65 1.00 0.90 1.35 - -
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - -
Extreme Event I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00

The LRFD load factors are applied to axial force, shear forces, and moments in
longitudinal and transverse directions to calculate factored loads for Strength, Service
and Extreme Event limit states at the base of the column, as summarized in Table
15.8-6. Only the governing seismic case that is Seismic-I is used in Extreme Event-I
load combination.

Table 15.8-6 Factored Forces at Column Base for Footing Design

MT ML P VT VL VTotal
Factored Loads
(kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip)
Strength I-U -37 2,582 3,037 3 95 95
Strength I-L -75 2,087 2,318 1 74 74
Strength II-U 201 2,003 3,224 16 72 74
Strength II-L 162 1,508 2,505 14 51 53
Strength III-U 117 1,434 2,198 7 50 50
Strength III-L 79 939 1,479 4 28 28
Strength V-U -2 2,319 2,845 4 85 85
Strength V-L -40 1,824 2,126 2 63 63
Service I 3 1,754 2,188 3 61 61

Extreme Event I 22,126 0 2,701 864 35 865

Example: Calculation of gross axial force at bottom of footing for Strength-II-U

limit state:

Pg =1.25(1503)+1.5(227)+1(-21)+1.35(760)=3,224 kips

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-13

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

15.8.5 Footing Size Determination

In order to design a spread footing all live load combinations (Cases I, II and III)
should be considered for both design and permit trucks. It is recommended to
consider maximum axial case (Case III) for initial sizing of the footing and check
footing size and stresses for the other two cases (I and II), however this example only
considers Case-III.
Based on preliminary analysis of the footing, reasonable estimates for width of
the footing as well as length to width ratios are provided to the GD to be used in
design (Appendix A). Refer to MTD 4-1 (Caltrans, 2014b) for other information to be
submitted to the GD.
The GD will provide graphs and also a table of permissible net contact stress
(used for Service-I limit state check), and factored gross nominal bearing resistance
(used for strength and extreme event limit states) for numerous B' and L'/B'
ratios, as shown in Figures 15.8-3 to 15.8-5, and Table 15.8-7 for given ranges of
footing widths and also effective length to effective width ratios.

10.0
L'/B'=1.00
Permissible Net Contact Stress qpn (ksf)

9.0
L'/B'=1.25 For Permissible Settlement = 1''
8.0 L'/B'=1.50

L'/B'=1.75
7.0
L'/B'=2.00

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Footing Effective Width (ft)

Figure 15.8-3 Variations of Permissible Net Contact Stress

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-14

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

45.0

L'/B'=1.00
Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance qR (ksf)

L'/B'=1.25
40.0
L'/B'=1.50

L'/B'=1.75

L'/B'=2.00
35.0

30.0

Resistance Factor b = 0.45

25.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Footing Effective Width (ft)

Figure 15.8-4 Variations of Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance

(Strength Limit State)

100.0
Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance qR (ksf)

L'/B'=1.00

L'/B'=1.25
90.0
L'/B'=1.50

L'/B'=1.75
80.0
L'/B'=2.00

70.0

60.0
Resistance Factor b = 1.00

50.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Footing Effective Width (ft)
Figure 15.8-5 Variations of Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance
(Extreme Event Limit State)

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-15

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Table 15.8-7 Variations of Bearing Resistance for Different Limit States

Effective Effective Factored Factored Permissible Net

Footing Size Footing Gross Gross Contact Stress
No. Size Nominal Nominal (Service Limit)
Ratio Bearing Bearing
Resistance Resistance
(Extreme (Strength
Event Limit) Limit)
B (ft) L (ft) L/B qR (ksf) qR (ksf) qpn (ksf)
1 10.00 10.00 1.00 69.8 31.4 9.7
2 13.75 13.75 1.00 74.5 33.5 7.0
3 17.50 17.50 1.00 79.4 35.8 5.5
4 21.25 21.25 1.00 84.5 38.0 4.6
5 25.00 25.00 1.00 89.6 40.3 3.9
1 10.00 12.50 1.25 66.8 30.1 8.7
2 13.75 17.19 1.25 72.2 32.5 6.3
3 17.50 21.88 1.25 77.9 35.1 5.0
4 21.25 26.56 1.25 83.7 37.7 4.1
5 25.00 31.25 1.25 89.5 40.3 3.5
1 10.00 15.00 1.50 64.8 29.2 8.0
2 13.75 20.63 1.50 70.7 31.8 5.8
3 17.50 26.25 1.50 76.9 34.6 4.6
4 21.25 31.88 1.50 83.1 37.4 3.8
5 25.00 37.50 1.50 89.5 40.3 3.2
1 10.00 17.50 1.75 63.3 28.5 7.4
2 13.75 24.06 1.75 69.7 31.3 5.4
3 17.50 30.63 1.75 76.2 34.3 4.2
4 21.25 37.19 1.75 82.8 37.2 3.5
5 25.00 43.75 1.75 89.4 40.2 3.0
1 10.00 20.00 2.00 62.3 28.0 7.0
2 13.75 27.50 2.00 68.8 31.0 5.1
3 17.50 35.00 2.00 75.6 34.0 4.0
4 21.25 42.50 2.00 82.5 37.1 3.3
5 25.00 50.00 2.00 89.4 40.2 2.8

As the first trial, a square footing of 2020 ft is selected and contact stresses
under service, strength, and extreme event factored loads are calculated as
summarized in the following tables. Stresses are compared to permissible net
contact stress (Service-I), and factored gross nominal bearing resistance (Strength
and Extreme Event), as explained in MTD 4-1. Since the footing rests on soil, contact
stress distribution is assumed uniform over the effective area of the footing.

The bearing stresses should be calculated as net for Service-I limit state and gross
for all strength and extreme event limit states as shown in Figure 15.8-6, therefore,
weight of overburden soil and footing with corresponding load factors have been
considered in the axial forces shown in Table 15.8-8.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-16

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

FG OG

Poverburde

Pgross
Pnet=Pgross - Poverburden

Figure 15.8-6 Definition of Gross and Net Bearing Stresses

For example:
Strength I-U
Pgross = Pgross at column base + factored weight at soil on footing
+ factored weight of footing
Pgross = 3,037 + (20 20-28.26) (48-39-4) (120/1,000) (1.35)
+ (20 20 4) (150/,000) (1.25) = 3,638 kips
Service-I
Pnet = Pnet at column base + weight of soil on footing + weight of footing
excavated soil (over burden)
Pnet = 2,188 + (2020-28.26) (48-39-4) (120/1,000)
+ (20204)(150/1,000)-(48-39) (20x20) (120/1,000) = 2,220 kips
Detailed calculations for Strength I-U limit state can be summarized as:
MT = -37 kip-ft; P = 3,638 kips
eT = 37/3,638 = 0.01 ft; LT = 20-2(0.01) = 19.98 ft
ML= 2,582 kip-ft, eL =2,582/3,638 = 0.71ft
LL =20-2(0.71) = 18.58 ft
Ae= 19.98(18.58) = 371 ft2 ; qg,u = 3,638/371 = 9.80 ksf
L'/B' =19.98/18.58 =1.08, therefore qR = 36.23 (From Figure 15.8-3)
Since qR is greater than qg,u, bearing resistance is adequate.
Similar calculation is required for every load combination as shown in Table 15.8-8

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-17

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Table 15.8-8 Detailed Check for Footing Size (First Trial)

Load MT ML P eT eL L'T L'L
Combination (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Strength I-U -37 2,582 3,638 0.01 0.71 19.98 18.58
Strength I-L -75 2,087 2,735 0.03 0.76 19.94 18.47
Strength II-U 201 2,003 3,826 0.05 0.52 19.90 18.95
Strength II-L 162 1,508 2,923 0.06 0.52 19.89 18.97
Strength III-U 117 1,434 2,800 0.04 0.51 19.92 18.97
Strength III-L 79 939 1,896 0.04 0.50 19.92 19.01
Strength V-U -2 2,319 3,447 0.00 0.67 20.19 18.65
Strength V-L -40 1,824 2,543 0.02 0.72 19.97 18.56
Service I -3 1,754 2,220 0.00 0.79 20.00 18.42
Extreme Event I 22126 0 3,164 6.99 0.00 6.01 20.00

Table 15.8-8 Detailed Check for Footing Size (First Trial) (Continued)
qpn qo/qpn
Load Ae qo
L'/B' or or Check
Combination (ft2) (ksf)
qR (ksf) qo/qR Ratio
Strength I-U 371.2 1.08 9.80 36.23 0.27 OK
Strength I-L 368.5 1.08 7.42 36.15 0.21 OK
Strength II-U 377.1 1.05 10.15 36.52 0.28 OK
Strength II-L 377.2 1.05 7.75 36.53 0.21 OK
Strength III-U 377.9 1.05 7.41 36.53 0.20 OK
Strength III-L 378.6 1.05 5.01 36.56 0.14 OK
Strength V-U 373.1 1.07 9.24 36.28 0.25 OK
Strength V-L 370.7 1.08 6.86 36.22 0.15 OK
Service I 368.3 1.09 6.02 5.11 1.18 NG
Extreme Event I 119.1 3.32 26.30 40.43* 0.65 OK

* L'/B is out of range, therefore, factored nominal bearing resistance was calculated by
extrapolation. For design purposes, the SD needs to ask the GD to provide adequate
data to cover all applicable cases, without any need to extrapolation.
In Table 15.8-8:
L'L, L'T = effective dimensions of the footing in the directions of L and T,
respectively (ft). L'T = LT 2eT and L'L = LL 2eL
eL , eT = eccentricities calculated from ML and MT, respectively (ft)
Ae = effective area of the footing (ft2)
B' = shorter effective dimension (ft)
L' = longer effective dimension (ft)
q0 = uniform bearing stress calculated as net for service (qn,u) and gross for
Strength and Extreme Event limits (qg,u) (ksf)
qpn = permissible net contact stress (ksf)
qR = factored gross nominal bearing resistance (ksf)

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-18

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

The permissible eccentricity under Service-I Load is calculated as:

B/6 = L/6 = 20/6 = 3.33 ft. Therefore the eccentricity calculated under Service-I
loads (0.79 ft) is acceptable. Under Extreme Event, the calculated eccentricity of 6.99
ft is larger than the permissible eccentricity of B/3 = L/3 = 20/6 = 6.66 ft and is not
acceptable.

Examination of stresses shows that contact stress calculated under Service-I limit
state is higher than permissible net stress calculated from information (chart or table)
provided by the GD. Therefore, size of the footing is increased to 24 ft 24 ft and
stresses are recalculated as shown in Table 15.8-9.
Table 15.8-9 Detailed Check for Footing Size (Second Trial)

Load MT ML P eT eL L'T L'L

Combination (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Strength I-U -37 2,582 3,913 0.01 0.66 23.98 22.68
Strength I-L -75 2,087 2,925 0.03 0.71 23.95 22.57
Strength II-U 201 2,003 4,101 0.05 0.49 23.90 23.02
Strength II-L 162 1,508 3,113 0.05 0.48 23.90 23.03
Strength III-U 117 1,434 3,074 0.04 0.47 23.92 23.07
Strength III-L 79 939 2,086 0.04 0.45 23.92 23.10
Strength V-U -2 2,319 3,721 0.00 0.62 24.00 22.75
Strength V-L -40 1,824 2,733 0.01 0.67 23.97 22.66
Service I 3 1,754 2,241 0.00 0.78 24.00 22.43
Extreme Event I 22,126 0 3,376 6.55 0.00 10.89 24.00

Table 15.8-9 Detailed Check for Footing Size (Second Trial) (Continued)

qpn qo/qpn
Load Ae qo
L'/B' or or Check
Combination (ft2) (ksf)
qR (ksf) qo/qR Ratio
Strength I-U 543.9 1.06 7.20 38.85 0.15 OK
Strength I-L 540.6 1.06 5.41 38.77 0.14 OK
Strength II-U 550.3 1.04 7.45 39.08 0.15 OK
Strength II-L 550.3 1.04 5.66 39.09 0.14 OK
Strength III-U 551.9 1.04 5.57 39.11 0.14 OK
Strength III-L 552.7 1.04 3.77 39.13 0.10 OK
Strength V-U 546.1 1.05 6.82 38.90 0.18 OK
Strength V-L 543.3 1.06 5.03 38.84 0.13 OK
Service I 538.4 1.07 4.16 4.22 0.99 OK
Extreme Event I 261.3 2.20 12.91 63.1* 0.23 OK
* L'/B is out of range, therefore, factored nominal bearing resistance was calculated by
extrapolation. For design purposes, the SD needs to ask the GD to provide adequate data
to cover all applicable cases, without any need to extrapolation.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-19

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

As shown in above tables, a 24 ft 24 ft footing size satisfies stress

requirements. Furthermore, the calculated eccentricities under service and extreme
event limit states (0.78 ft and 6.55 ft, respectively) are smaller than the limits (4 ft
and 8 ft, respectively). The ratio of length of footing from column face to face of
footing, to thickness of footing, Lftg/Dftg = (0.5)(24-6)/4 = 2.25 that is slightly over
the limit of 2.2 required by SDC 7.7.1.3 (Caltrans 2013) for rigidity of the footing.
However, the SDC limitation is mostly applicable to pile cap and it is less critical for
spread footings.

The factored nominal sliding resistance between footing and soil is calculated as:
RR Rn R ep Rep (AASHTO 10.6.3.4-1)

Assuming that soil passive pressure is negligible, RR= R , and for cohesionless
soil:
R = V tan() (AASHTO 10.6.3.4-2)
where:
R = nominal sliding resistance between soil and foundation (kip)
V = total vertical force (kip)
For concrete cast against soil : = f = internal friction angle of drained soil
The factored resistance against sliding failure for cast-in-place concrete on sand
is calculated using = 0.8 for strength limit states and = 1.0 for extreme event
limit state (AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1).

Similar to axial force, LRFD load factors are applied to unfactored resultant
shear forces (VRes.) to calculate factored shear forces for each load combination.
Table 15.8-10 shows that requirements of AASHTO Article 10.6.3.4 for sliding
failure is met, therefore footing size of 24 ft 24 ft is acceptable and will be used
throughout this example.

Table 15.8-10 Sliding Check for Footing

Load Factored Resultant Factored Vertical

RR (kip) Check
Combination Shear (kip) Load (kip)
Strength I-U 95 3,913 2,444 OK
Strength I-L 74 2,925 1,827 OK
Strength II-U 74 4,101 2,561 OK
Strength II-L 53 3,113 1,544 OK
Strength III-U 50 3,074 1,520 OK
Strength III-L 28 2,086 1,303 OK
Strength V-U 83 3,721 2,324 OK
Strength V-L 63 2,733 1,707 OK
Extreme Event I 865 3,376 2,635 OK

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-20

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Upon finalizing the footing size, Foundation Design Data Sheets shown in
Appendix are completed and forwarded to the GS to be used for preparation of
Foundation Design Recommendations.

15.8.6 Flexural Design

For structural design of the footing, distribution of contact stresses is assumed

linear (trapezoidal or triangular) irrespective of the substrate stiffness (resting on soil
or rock). If the eccentricity (e=M/P) is less than L/6 then the soil under the entire area
of the footing is in compression and contact stresses can be determined based on
trapezoidal distribution.

Maximum forces acting at the bottom of column for case-III can be summarized
as:
Service: P = 2,188 kips; ML = 1,754 kip-ft; MT = 3 kip-ft
Strength I-U: P = 3638 kips; ML = 2,582 kip-ft; MT = -37 k-ft
The area and section modulus of the footing contact surface are: 576 ft2 and 2,304 ft3,
respectively. Maximum and minimum contact stresses acting along the edges of the
footing (q1 and q2) are calculated using the generic equation of (P/A) (M/S):
Strength Limit State:
L Direction: q1=7.44 ksf; q2=5.20 ksf
T Direction: q1=6.33 ksf; q2=6.30 ksf
Service Limit State:
L Direction: q1= 4.56 ksf; q2= 3.04 ksf
T Direction: q1= 3.80 ksf; q2= 3.80 ksf
Since the column has a circular cross section, it is transformed into an effective
square section for footing analysis with equivalent column width of: (28.26)0.5 = 5.32
ft.

Assuming #5 (db=0.69 in.) and #9 (db=1.25 in.) bars are used for top and bottom
mat reinforcement, the minimum effective depths (de) of the footing for the top and
bottom mats are calculated as 43.96 in. and 43.1 in., respectively.
Critical sections for moment and shear calculations:
Bending moment at the face of the column (AASHTO 5.13.3.4)
One-way shear at distance dv from the face of the column (AASHTO
5.8.3.2)
Two-way (punching) shear on the perimeter of a surface located at distance
dv,avg from the face of the column (AASHTO 5.13.3.6)

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-21

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

where:
dv = effective shear depth of the section (ft)
dv,avg = average of effective shear depths for both directions (ft)
Using critical contact stresses (q1 and q2), maximum moments at the face of the
column for unit foot width of the footing are calculated as:
Strength Limit State: ML = 311.8 kip-ft; MT = 276.1 kip-ft
Service Limit State: ML =190.4 kip-ft; MT = 165.8 kip-ft
Assuming 3 in. concrete cover, and using 42#9 bars for bottom mat, the spacing
of rebars is calculated as:
s = [24(12)-2(3)-1.25]/(42-1) = 6.85 in.
The calculated spacing is less than maximum spacing of 12 in. specified in
AASHTO Article 5.10.8, and it is acceptable.
The area of steel contributing to unit width of the footing is: (1.0)(12)/6.85=1.75
in.2, therefore the depth of the concrete stress block and resisting moment are
calculated as:
(1.75)(60)
a 2.86 in.
(0.85)(3.6)(12)
Corresponding depth of the neutral axis will be c = (2.86)/(0.85) = 3.36 in. and
the net tensile strain in extreme tension steel reinforcement is calculated as:
s = (0.003)(43.1-3.36)/(3.36) = 0.035
Since calculated strain is larger than 0.005, the section is considered as tension-
controlled and resistance factor is taken as 0.9 (AASHTO 5.5.4.2). The factored
moment is calculated as:
Mr = Mn = (0.9)(1.75)(60)(43.1-0.52.86)(1/12)=328.1 kip-ft
> ML = 311.8 kip-ft OK
Therefore, selected number of bars is adequate for strength in both directions.
However AASHTO Article 5.7.3.3.2 requires minimum amount of reinforcement to
be provided for crack control. The factored flexural resistance Mr is required at least
equal to as the smaller of Mcr and 1.33 Mu as follows (gross section properties are
used instead of transformed sections):
Modulus of rupture: fr = (0.24)(3.6)0.5 = 0.455 ksi
Gross section modulus: Sc = Snc = (12)(48)2 /6=4,608 in.3
Mcr = 3 1 fr Sc = 1.6(0.75)(0.455)(4,608) = 2,516 kip-in. = 209.7 kip-ft
(AASHTO 5.7.3.3.2-1)
1.33Mu = 1.33(311.8) = 414.7 kip-ft

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-22

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

M r M n 328.1 kip - ft
M cr 209.7 kip - ft
smaller of 209.7 kip - ft
1.33M u 414.7 kip - ft
OK (AASHTO 5.7.3.3.2)
AASHTO Article 5.7.3.4 requires maximum limits of rebar spacing for crack control.
700 e
s 2d c (AASHTO 5.7.3.4-1)
s f ss
Assuming exposure factor e = 1 (class-I exposure) and dc = 3 + (1.25/2)=3.625 in.
3.625
s 1 1.117
0.7( 48 3.625)
Cracked concrete section is used to calculate tensile stress in steel reinforcement
under service loads:
Ec = 57(3,600)0.5 = 3,420 ksi
n = 2,9000/3,420=8.48.
Per AASHTO Article 5.7.1, n is rounded to the nearest integer number, therefore n = 8
will be used.
The distance of the neutral axis to the top of the footing is calculated as:
yb=8.93 in.
The moment of inertia for unit width (12 in.) of the transformed section (based on
concrete) is calculated as:
Itrans=(12)(8.933)/3+(1.75)(8)(43.1-8.93)2=19,194 in.4
Tensile stress in steel reinforcement at the service limit state is calculated as:
M d e yb 190.412 43.1 8.93 32.54 ksi
f ss n 8
I 19,194
The maximum spacing is checked as:
700 e 700(1)
s 6.85 in. 2d c 2(3.625) 12 in. OK
s f ss (1.117)(32.54)
Therefore, 42#9 bars are acceptable for the bottom mat.
The shrinkage and temperature reinforcement for the top mat per unit foot width shall
satisfy (AASHTO Article 5.10.8):
1.3bh 1.3(12 24)(48)
As 0.446 in.2 (AASHTO 5.10.8.1)
2(b h) f y 2(12 24 48)(60)

0.11 As 0.6 (AASHTO 5.10.8-2)

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-23

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Since thickness of the footing is greater than 18 in., spacing of the rebar shall not
exceed 12 in. If 42#5 bars are considered:
s = [24(12)-2(3)-0.69]/(42-1) = 6.85 in. < 2 in. OK
As = (0.31)(12)/(6.85) = 0.543 in.2 > 0.446 in.2/ft OK (AASHTO 5.10.8-1)
0.11 < As = 0.543 < 0.6 OK (AASHTO 5.10.8-2)
Therefore, 42#5 bars in each direction will be used for the top mat.
Note: For square footings the reinforcement shall be distributed uniformly across the
entire width of the footing. (AASHTO Article 5.13.3.5)

15.8.7 Shear Design

According to AASHTO Article 5.13.3.6.1, both one-way and two-way shears

shall be considered in footing design:
The critical section for one-way action extends in a plane across the entire
width and located at a distance as specified in AASHTO 5.8.3.2 (that is
mostly at distance dv from the face of the column).
The critical section for two-way action is perpendicular to the plane of the
footing and located so that its perimeter b0, is a minimum but not closer than
0.5dv to the perimeter of the concentrated load or reaction area.
where: dv=d - 0.5a=43.1-0.5(2.86)=41.67 in. 3.5 ft. , however, dv should be greater
than both 0.9de=0.9(43.1) = 38.79 in. and 0.72h= 0.72(48) = 34.56 inch. Therefore,
dv=3.5 ft will be used in calculations.

15.8.7.1 Direct (One-Way) Shear

The extreme contact stresses for most critical strength limit state case (L
direction) are 5.20 ksf and 7.44 ksf. As shown in Figure 15.8-7, assuming a linear
stress distribution the contact stress at distance dv from face of the column is
calculated:
q3 = 7.44 - (7.44 5.20)(12-2.66-3.5)/(24) = 6.89 ksf
Shear force at critical section for unit width:
Vu = (7.44+6.89)(12-2.66-3.5)/2 = 41.84 kips
The maximum shear resistance of the section (considering shear reinforcement
contribution) is limited to 0.25 f cbv d v (AASHTO 5.8.3.3-3):
Vn, max = 0.25(3.6)(12)(41.67) = 450 kips
This maximum shear resistance is much higher than factored shear force of 41.84
kips, and is not governing.

Shear resistance of concrete (Vc) is 0.0316 f cbv dv , where = 2.0.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-24

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Vc 0.03162 3.6 1241.67 59.96 kips

Assuming that no shear reinforcement will be used, Vs=0 and
Vn=0.9(60) = 54 kips > 39.15 kips OK

5.32'

Vu

5.20 ksf 7.44 ksf

3.5

6.89 ksf

24'

Fig 15.8-7 Direct Shear Force Calculation

15.8.7.2 Punching (Two-Way) Shear

The critical section is located at the distance of 0.5 dv,avg. from face of the column
as shown in Figure 15.8-8.

Critical section for

24' two way shear

6'
24'

9.5'

Fig 15.8-8 Critical Section for Two-Way Shear

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-25

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Using conservative assumption of dv,avg=3.5 ft results in b0 = (6+3.5) = 29.83 ft

= 358 in. For square footing c = 1, and nominal shear resistance is as:
0.126
f c bo d v 0.063
0.126
Vn 0.063 3.6 35841.67 5,350 kips
c 1.0

Vn 5,350 kips 0.126 f c bo d v 0.126 3.6 35841.67 3,566 kips

Use Vn 3,566 kips

Vn = 0.9(3,566) = 3,210 kips

The punching shear force acting on the critical surface is calculated by
subtracting the force resulting from soil contact stress acting on the critical surface
from the axial force of the column:

4.752 3,190 kips Vn 3,210 kips

3,638
P2 way 3,638 OK
2424
Shear reinforcement is not required and the footing depth d = 4.0 ft is acceptable.
Note: Although seismic loads were considered in sizing of the footing, structural
design of the footing was only based on service and strength I-U (Case-III) limit
states. Refer to Caltrans SDC (Caltrans, 2013) for other design and detailing
requirements.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-26

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

APPENDIX

COMMUNICATIONS OF STRUCTURAL AND

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNERS
(REFER TO MTD 4-1 AND MTD 1-35)

Preliminary Foundation Design Data Sheet (Trial Footing Size)

Table 1 Preliminary Foundation Data

Approximate
Estimated
Finished BOF Permissible Ratio of
Footing
Support Grade Elevation Settlement Permanent
Dimensions
No. Elevation (ft) (ft) under Service-I Total
(ft) Load (in.) Service I
B L Load
Abut 1 1 or 2 -
Bent 2 48 39 10 10 1 0.75
Abut 3 1 or 2 -

Table 2 Scour Data

Long-term
Short-term (Local)
Support No. (Degradation and Contraction)
Scour Depth (ft)
Scour Elevation (ft)
Abut 1 N/A N/A
Bent 2 48 0.00
Abut 3 N/A N/A

Foundation Design Data Sheet (Final Footing Size)

Table 3 Foundation Data

Finished Footing
BOF Dimensions
Grade Permissible Settlement
Support No. Elevation (ft)
Elevation under Service Load (in.)
(ft)
(ft) B L
Abut 1 1 or 2
Bent 2 48 39 24 24 1
Abut 3 1 or 2

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-27

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

Table 4 LRFD Service-I Limit State Loads for Controlling Load Combination

Total Load Permanent Load

Support PTotal PPerm
No. Mx My Vx Vy Mx My Vx Vy
(kip) (kip)
(kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (kip) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (kip)
Net Gross
Abut 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bent 2 2,241 1,754 3 N/A N/A 1,762 1,098 85 N/A N/A
Abut 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 5 LRFD Strength/Construction and

Extreme Event Limit States Load Data

Strength/Construction Limit State Extreme Event Limit State

(Controlling Group) (Controlling Group)

Support PTotal
PTotal
No. (kips) Mx My Vx Vy Mx My Vx Vy
(kip)
Gross (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (kip) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip) (kip)
Gross

Abut 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bent 2 4101 2003 201 N/A 3,376 0 22,126 864 35
Abut 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: Load tables may be modified to submit multiple lines of critical load combinations for
each limit state, if necessary.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-28

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

NOTATION
A = actual footing area (ft2)
A = reduced effective area of the footing (ft2)
B, L = actual dimensions of the footing (ft)
B, L = effective dimensions of the footing (ft)
clr. = minimum clearance from the bottom of footing to the bottom mat of footing
reinforcement (in.)
db = diameter of bar (in.)
dfooting = footing depth (ft)
dmin. = minimum footing depth (ft)
dv = effective shear depth of the section (ft)
dv,avg = average of effective shear depths for both directions (ft)
ey, ex = eccentricities parallel to dimensions B and L, respectively (ft)
f c = 28-day compressive strength of concrete (psi)
fy = specified minimum yield strength of steel (ksi)
ldb = development length for deformed bars (in.)
lhb = development length for deformed bars (in.)
ld = required development length of the main column reinforcement (in.)
ML, MT = moments acting about L and T directions, respectively (kip-ft)
Mp = plastic moment at column base (kip-ft)
Mx, My = moments acting X and Y directions, respectively (kip-ft)
P = vertical force acting at the center of gravity of the bottom of the footing area
(kip)
q = uniform bearing stress (ksf)
qg,u = gross uniform bearing stress (ksf)
qg,max = gross maximum bearing stress (ksf)
qn = gross nominal bearing resistance (ksf)
qn,max = net maximum bearing stress calculated using Service-I Limit State loads
assuming linear stress distribution for footings on rock (ksf)
qn,u = net uniform bearing stress calculated using Service-I Limit State loads assuming
uniform stress distribution for footings on soil (ksf)

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-29

 BRIDGE DESIGN PRACTICE FEBRUARY 2015

qpn = permissible net contact stress provided by the GD and calculated based on a
specified allowable settlement (ksf)
qR = factored gross nominal bearing resistance provided by the GD = bqn (ksf)
R = nominal sliding resistance between soil and concrete (kip)
Sx, Sy = section modulus of the footing area about X and Y directions, respectively (ft3)
V = total force acting perpendicular to the interface (kip)
VL, VT = shears acting along L and T directions, respectively (kip)
Vp = plastic shear at column base (kip)
V x, V y = shears acting along X and Y directions, respectively (kip)
= friction angle at interface of concrete and soil (degree)
f = internal friction angle of drained soil (degree)
b = resistance factor for bearing
= resistance factor against sliding

REFERENCES
1. AASHTO. (2012). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units,
2012 (6th Edition), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.

2. Caltrans. (2013). Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.7, California Department
of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

3. Caltrans. (2014a). California Amendment to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications - 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

4. Caltrans. (2014b). Bridge Memo to Designers 4-1: Shallow Foundations, California

Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

5. Caltrans. (2008). Bridge Memo to Designers 1-35: Foundation Recommendation and

Reports, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

Chapter 15 Shallow Foundations 15-30