See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288684507

Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model

Article  in  Structural Engineering & Mechanics · December 2015

DOI: 10.12989/sem.2015.56.5.745

CITATIONS READS

4 1,575

1 author:

Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Torreón, Coahuila, México
87 PUBLICATIONS   285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MODELOS MATEMATICOS EN LA ADMINISTRACION DE EMPRESAS PARA MEJORAR LA EFICIENCIA View project

MODELOS MATEMATICOS PARA DISEÑO DE ELEMENTOS ESTRUCTURALES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas on 17 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 56, No. 5 (2015) 745-765
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.56.5.745 745

Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form

using a new model
Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas
Faculty of Engineering, Science and Architecture, Juárez University of Durango State,
Av. Universidad S/N, Fracc. Filadelfia, CP 35010, Gómez Palacio, Durango, México

(Received December 28, 2014, Revised October 2, 2015, Accepted October 30, 2015)

Abstract. This paper presents the design of reinforced concrete combined footings of trapezoidal form
subjected to axial load and moments in two directions to each column using a new model to consider soil
real pressure acting on the contact surface of the footing; such pressure is presented in terms of an axial load,
moment around the axis “X” and moment around the axis “Y” to each column. The classical model considers
an axial load and moment around the axis “X” (transverse axis) applied to each column, and when the
moments in two directions are taken into account, the maximum pressure throughout the contact surface of
the footing is considered the same. The main part of this research is that the proposed model considers soil
real pressure and the classical model takes into account the maximum pressure, and also is considered
uniform. We conclude that the proposed model is more suited to the real conditions and is more economical.
Keywords: footings design; trapezoidal combined footings; moments; bending shear; punching shear

1. Introduction

The function of a footing or a foundation is to transmit the load of the structure to the
underlying soil. The choice of suitable type of footing depends on the depth at which the bearing
stratum is located, the soil condition and the type of superstructure. The foundations are classified
into superficial and deep (Das et al. 2006).
Superficial foundations may be of various types according to their function; isolated footing,
combined footing, strip footing, or mat foundation (Bowles 2001).
The distribution of soil pressure under a footing is a function of the type of soil, the relative
rigidity of the soil and the footing, and the depth of foundation at level of contact between footing
and soil. A concrete footing on sand will have a pressure distribution similar to Fig. 1(a). When a
rigid footing is resting on sandy soil, the sand near the edges of the footing tends to displace
laterally when the footing is loaded. This tends to decrease in soil pressure near the edges, whereas
soil away from the edges of footing is relatively confined. On the other hand, the pressure
distribution under a footing on clay is similar to Fig. 1(b). As the footing is loaded, the soil under
the footing deflects in a bowl-shaped depression, relieving the pressure under the middle of the

Corresponding author, Ph.D., E-mail: arnulfol_2007@hotmail.com

Copyright © 2015 Techno-Press, Ltd.

http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=sem&subpage=8 ISSN: 1225-4568 (Print), 1598-6217 (Online)
746 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Fig. 1 Pressure distribution under footing; (a) footing on sand; (b) footing on clay; (c) equivalent
uniform distribution

footing. For design purposes, it is common to assume the soil pressure is linearly distributed. The
pressure distribution will be uniform if the centroid of the footing coincides with the resultant of
the applied loads, as shown in Fig. 1(c) (Bowles 2001).
The design of superficial foundations, in the specific case of isolated footings are of three types
in terms of the application of loads: 1) The footings subject to concentric axial load, 2) The
footings subject to axial load and moment in one direction (unidirectional bending), 3) The
footings subject to axial load and moment in two directions (bidirectional bending) (Das et al.
2006, Bowles 2001, Calabera-Ruiz 2000, Tomlinson 2008).
A combined footing is a footing supporting two or more columns (typically two). The
combined footing may be rectangular, trapezoidal or T-shaped in plan. Rectangular footing is
provided when one of the projections of the footing is restricted or the width of the footing is
restricted. Trapezoidal footing or T-shaped is provided when a column load is much larger than the
other. As a result, both projections of the footing beyond the faces of the columns will be restricted
(Kurian 2005, Punmia et al. 2007, Varghese 2009).
Whenever two or more columns in a straight line are carried on a single spread footing, it is
called a combined footing. Isolated footings for each column are generally the more economical.
Combined footings are provided only when it is absolutely necessary, as
1. When two columns are close together, causing overlap of adjacent isolated footings
2. Where soil bearing capacity is low, causing overlap of adjacent isolated footings
3. Proximity of property line of building or existing building or sewer, which may limit the size
of footings at boundary.
Fig. 2 shows some solutions through combined footings.
The hypothesis used in the classical model considers the axial load and moment around an axis
transverse to the combined footing for the geometric proportions and shape are so fixed that the
centroid of the footing area coincides with the resultant of the column loads. This results in
uniform pressure below all the contact area of the footing. Then the equation of the bidirectional
bending is used to obtain the stresses acting on the contact surface of the combined footings,
which must meet the following conditions: 1) The minimum stress should be equal to or greater
than zero, because the soil is not capable of withstand tensile stresses, 2) The maximum stress
must be equal or less than the allowable capacity that can withstand the soil (Das et al. 2006,
Bowles 2001, Calabera-Ruiz 2000, Tomlinson 2008).
Guler and Celep (2005) presented the response of a rectangular plate-column system on a
tensionless winkler foundation subjected to static and dynamic loads.
Chen et al. (2011) proposed the nonlinear partial differential equations of motion for a hybrid
composite plate subjected to initial stresses on elastic foundations are established to investigate its
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 747

Fig. 2 Combined footing

nonlinear vibration behavior.

Smith-Pardo (2011) in this study presents a performance-based framework for soil-structure
systems using simplified rocking foundation models.
Shahin and Cheung (2011) presented the stochastic design charts for bearing capacity of strip
footings.
Zhang et al. (2011) presented a nonlinear analysis of finite beam resting on winkler with
consideration of beam-soil interface resistance effect.
Agrawal and Hora (2012) proposed the building frame and its foundation along with the soil on
which it rests, together constitute a complete structural system.
Rad (2012) realized the study on the static behavior of bi-directional functionally graded (FG)
non-uniform thickness circular plate resting on quadratically gradient elastic foundations (Winkler-
Pasternak type) subjected to axisymmetric transverse and in-plane shear efforts is carried out by
using a model 3D and differential quadrature methods.
Maheshwari and Khatri (2012) estimated the influence of inclusion of geosynthetic layer on
response of combined footings on stone column of earth beds reinforced.
Orbanich et al. (2012) showed a study on strenghtening and repair of concrete foundation
beams whit fiber composite materials.
Luévanos-Rojas (2012a, b, 2013, 2014a) presented the mathematical models to obtain the
748 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

dimensions of rectangular, square and circular isolated footings subjected to axial load and
moments in two directions (bidirectional bending), and a comparative study between the
rectangular footings, square and circular with respect to the contact surface on soil.
Mohamed et al. (2013) presented the generalized schmertmann equation for settlement
estimation of shallow footings in saturated and unsaturated sands.
Luévanos-Rojas et al. (2013) proposed a design of isolated footings of rectangular form using a
new model.
Orbanich and Ortega (2013) this study aimed to investigate the mechanical behavior of
rectangular foundation plates with perimetric beams and internal stiffening beams of the plate is
herein analyzed, taking the foundation design into account.
Luévanos-Rojas (2014b) presented a design of isolated footings of circular form using a new
model.
Luévanos-Rojas (2014c) proposed a design of boundary combined footings of rectangular
shape using a new model.
This paper presents a full model for the design of boundary trapezoidal combined footings to
obtain: 1) Moments around of an axis a1’-a1’ with a width “w1” and the axis a2’-a2’ with a width
“w2” that are parallel to axis “Y-Y”, and moments around of the axes b’-b’, c’-c’, d’-d’ and e’-e’
that are parallel to axis “X-X”; 2) Bending shear; 3) Punching shear for footings which support a
boundary column and other inner column subject to axial load and moment in two directions
(bidirectional bending), where pressure is different in the four corners, these pressures are
presented in terms of the mechanical elements (axial load, moment around the axis “X-X” and
moment around the axis “Y-Y”).

2. Methodology

2.1 General conditions

According to Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-13) and
Commentary the critical sections are: 1) the maximum moment is located in face of column,
pedestal, or wall, for footings supporting a concrete column, pedestal, or wall; 2) bending shear is
presented at a distance “d” (distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal
tension reinforcement) shall be measured from face of column, pedestal, or wall for footings
supporting a column, pedestal, or wall; 3) punching shear is localized so that it perimeter “bo” is a
minimum but need not approach closer than “d/2” to: (a) Edges or corners of columns,
concentrated loads, or reaction areas; and (b) Changes in slab thickness such as edges of capitals,
drop panels, or shear caps.
The general equation for any type of footings subjected to bidirectional bending (Luévanos-
Rojas 2012a, b, 2013, Gere and Goodno 2009)

( )

where: σ is the stress exerted by the soil on the footing (soil pressure), A is the contact area of the
footing, P is the axial load applied at the center of gravity of the footing, Mx is the moment around
the axis “X”, My is the moment around the axis “Y”, Cx is the distance in the direction “X”
measured from the axis “Y” up the farthest end, Cy is the distance in direction “Y” measured from
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 749

Fig. 3 Boundary trapezoidal combined footing subjected to the real loads

the axis “X” up the farthest end, Iy is the moment of inertia around the axis “Y” and Ix is the
moment of inertia around the axis “X”.

2.2 Dimensioning for boundary trapezoidal combined footings

Fig. 3 shows a boundary trapezoidal combined footing supporting two rectangular columns of
different dimensions (a boundary column and other inner column) subjected to axial load and
moments in two directions in each column.
The value of “Cy1” is selected according to the following equation
( 1 + 2 )𝑐1
+ 2 2𝐿 − 2 𝑇
1 (2)
2( 1 + 2 )
Where the value of “a” should be
3
1 <𝑎<3 1 (3)
2
Then, the value of “b2” is selected according to the following equations
2 𝑇 (2𝑎 −3 1 )(3 1 − 𝑎)
𝑏2 2 (4)
𝑅(5𝑎2 − 8𝑎 1 + 8 1 )

𝑎𝑑𝑚 𝑎
2
(5𝑎2 − 8𝑎 1 + 8 1
2
)𝑏2 2 − 2𝑅(3 1 − 𝑎)(5𝑎2 − 8𝑎 1 + 8 1
2
)𝑏2
2
− 24 𝑇 (2𝑎 −3 1 )(3 1 − 𝑎) 0 (5)
where: the value of “b2” obtained by Eq. (4) is when the soil pressure is zero, and the value of “b2”
found by Eq. (5) is when the soil pressure is available load capacity “σadm”, of these two values is
taken the greater to meet the two conditions, because the pressure generated by footing must
greater than zero and less than the available load capacity the soil.
The value of “b1” is found through the following equation
750 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Fig. 4 Boundary trapezoidal combined footing due to equivalent loads

2𝑎 − 3 1
𝑏1 4 5 𝑏2 (6)
3 1−𝑎

2.3 New model for design of boundary trapezoidal combined footings

Fig. 4 presents a boundary trapezoidal combined footing due to the equivalent loads. The
mechanical elements of the components P1, Mx1, My1 are equivalent to a normal force “P1” acting
on the point with coordinates (ex1, ey1), and for the components of P2, Mx2, My2 are equivalent to a
normal force “P2” acting on the point with coordinates (ex2, ey2).
The stresses anywhere on a trapezoidal combined footing subjected to bidirectional bending by
Eq. (1) are found
2𝑅 36 𝑇 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )𝑦 48 𝑇 𝑥
(𝑥, 𝑦) + + (7)
𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 ) 𝑎 (𝑏1 + 4𝑏1 𝑏2 + 𝑏2 ) 𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏2 2 )
3 2 2

where: R=P1+P2, MxT=Mx1+Mx2, MyT=My1+My2.

The coordinates of the resultant force (xc, yc) are found by: the sum of moments around the axis
“X1” is obtained to find “yR” and the resultant force is made to coincide with the gravity center the
area of the footing with the position of the resultant force in the direction “Y”, therefore the
resultant force is located on the axis “X” and the value of “yc” is zero, “xR=xc” is the sum of
moments around the axis “Y” divided by the resultant force.
Now according to the above, the stresses anywhere of the contact surface the structural member
due to the pressure that is exerted by the soil for the boundary trapezoidal combined footing are
obtained
In the longitudinal direction
2𝑅 48 𝑇 𝑥
(𝑥, 𝑦) + (8)
𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 ) 𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏2 2 )
In the transverse direction
To the boundary column is
2 1 48 1𝑥
(𝑥, 𝑦) + (9)
1 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 ) 1 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏11 2 )
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 751

Fig. 5 Critical sections for moments

To the intermediate column is

2 2 48 2𝑥
(𝑥, 𝑦) + ( 0)
2 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 ) 2 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 )(𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 )
where: w1 and w2 are the widths of the analysis surface under the columns in the longitudinal
direction, the values of b11, b21 and b22 are the widths in the transverse direction, these are:
w1=c1+d/2, w2=c3+d, b11=b1–w1(b1–b2)/a, b21=b1–(c1+2L–w2)(b1–b2)/2a, b22=b1–(c1+2L+w2)(b1–
b2)/2a.

2.3.1 Moments
Critical sections for moments are presented in section a1’-a1’, a2’-a2’, b’-b’, c’-c’, d’-d’ and e’-
e’, as shown in Fig. 5.

2.3.1.1 Moment around the axis a1’-a1’

The resultant force “FRa1” is found through the pressure volume of the area formed by the axis
a1’-a1’ with a width “w1=c1+d/2” and the free end of the trapezoidal footing, where the pressure is
higher
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
𝑎1 ∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 ( )
⁄2

𝑎1 [ 1 𝑎(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏11 2 ),2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐2 ) − 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )- + 4 1 *3𝑎2 (𝑏1 2 − 𝑐2 2 )

− 3𝑎𝑏1 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + 1 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +] 2𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏11 2 ) ( 2)
Now, the gravity center “xca1” of the soil pressure with respect the axis “Y” is obtained
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ 𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
⁄2
𝑥 𝑎 ( 3)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
⁄2
752 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

𝑥 𝑎 , 1 𝑎(𝑏12 + 𝑏11
2
)*3𝑎2 (𝑏12 − 𝑐22 ) − 3𝑎𝑏1 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + 2
1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +
3 (𝑏 3
+6 1 *4𝑎 1 − 𝑐23 ) − 6𝑎2 𝑏12 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + 4𝑎𝑏1 2
1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2
3
− 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )3 +-
,6 1 𝑎2 (𝑏12 + 𝑏11
2
),2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐2 ) − 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )-
2 (𝑏 2
+24 1 𝑎 *3𝑎 1 − 𝑐22 ) − 3𝑎𝑏1 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + 2
1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +- ( 4)
The moment around the axis a1’-a1’ is

𝑎 𝑎 (𝑥 𝑎 − 𝑐2 2) ( 5)
Substituting Eqs. (12)-(14) into Eq. (15) is obtained
𝑎 , 1 𝑎(𝑏12 + 𝑏11
2
)*3𝑎2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 − 3𝑎 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + 2
1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +
3 (2𝑏 3
+6 1 *2𝑎 1 − 3𝑏12 𝑐2 + 𝑐23 ) − 6𝑎2 𝑏1 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )
2 3
+2 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 (2𝑏1 − 𝑐2 ) − 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )3 +-
2 )-
, 2𝑎3 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 )(𝑏12 + 𝑏11 ( 6)

2.3.1.2 Moment around the axis a2’-a2’

The resultant force “FRa2” is found through the pressure volume of the area formed by the axis
a2’-a2’ with a width “w2=c3+d” and the free end of the trapezoidal footing, where the pressure is
higher
( )⁄2 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
𝑎2 ∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 ( 7)
( )⁄2 ⁄2

𝑎2 [ 2 𝑎(𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 ),2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐4 ) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-

+ 2 *3,2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-2 − 2𝑎2 𝑐4 2 + 2 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +]
[2𝑎2 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 )(𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 )] ( 8)
Now, the gravity center “xca2” of the soil pressure with respect the axis “Y” is found
( )⁄2
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ 𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
⁄2
( ) ⁄2
𝑥 𝑎 ( ) ⁄2
( 9)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
⁄2
( )⁄2

𝑥 𝑎 [ 2 𝑎(𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 )*3,2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 2 2 − 2𝑎2 𝑐4 2 +

+ 2 2 *,2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-3 − 8𝑎3 𝑐4 3
+ 2 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 ,2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-+]
[24 2 𝑎2 (𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 ),2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐4 ) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-
+ 24 2 𝑎*3,2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 2 2 − 2𝑎2 𝑐4 2 +] (20)
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 753

The moment around the axis a1’-a1’ is

𝑎 𝑎 (𝑥 𝑎 − 𝑐4 2) (2 )
Substituting Eqs. (18)-(20) into Eq. (21) is obtained
2 2 2
𝑎 , 2 𝑎(𝑏21 + 𝑏22 )*3,2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐4 ) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-2 + 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +
3
+ 2 2 *4𝑎 (𝑏1 − 𝑐4 )2 (2𝑏1 + 𝑐4 ) − 2𝑎2 𝑏1 (𝑏1 − 𝑐4 )(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )
2
−(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )3 ,(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )3 + 2 (2𝐿 + 𝑐1 -+-
2
,48𝑎3 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 )(𝑏21 2 )- (22)
+ 𝑏22

2.3.1.3 Moment around the axis b’-b’

The resultant force “FRb’” is the force “P1” acting on column 1 subtracting the pressure volume
of the area formed by the axis b’-b’ and the corners 1 and 2 to the left of the footing, this is
presented of the follows
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
1−∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (23)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅𝑐1 ,2𝑎𝑏2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝑎 − 𝑐1 )-

1 − (24)
𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )
Now, the gravity center “ycb” of the soil pressure of the area formed by the axis b’-b’ and the
corners 1 and 2 with respect the axis “X” is presented
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
𝑦 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
𝑦 (25)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
(𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦

6𝑎𝑏1 ( 1 − 𝑐1 ) + 3𝑐1 ( 1 𝑏2 + 2 𝑏1 ) + 2𝑐1 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )

𝑦 (26)
3,2𝑎𝑏1 − 𝑐1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )-
The moment around the axis b’-b’ is
1 𝑐1
− [𝑦 − ( 1 − 𝑐1 )] (27)
2
where: FRbb is the soil pressure the area formed by the axis b’-b’ and the corners 1 and 2.
Substituting Eqs. (24)-(26) into Eq. (27) is obtained
1 𝑐1 𝑅𝑐12 ,3𝑎𝑏1 − 𝑐1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )-
− (28)
2 3𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.3.1.4. Moment around the axis c’-c’

The position the axis c’-c’ is localized, where the maximum moment is located.
When the shear force is zero, the moment should be the maximum, then the shear force is
754 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

presented at a distance “ym”, this is shown as follows

⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
1 −∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (29)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅( 1 − 𝑦𝑚 )[2𝑎𝑏2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2 2 + 1 + 𝑦𝑚 )]

1 − (30)
𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )
Now, the Eq. (30) becomes equal to zero, and we obtain

√𝑅[𝑏1 2 (𝑅 − 1) + 1 𝑏2
2
] − 𝑅( 1 𝑏2 + 2 𝑏1 )
𝑦𝑚 (3 )
𝑅(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )
Then, the maximum moment is obtained as follows
𝑐1 𝑅( 1 − 𝑦𝑚 )[2𝑎𝑏2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2 2 + 1 + 𝑦𝑚 )](𝑦 − 𝑦𝑚 )
1. 1 − − 𝑦𝑚 / − (32)
2 𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )
where: ycc is the gravity center of the soil pressure the area formed by the axis c’-c’ and the corners
1 and 2 with respect the axis “X”, and this is obtained
2
(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )( 1 − 𝑦𝑚 ) 1 𝑦𝑚
𝑦 + + (33)
6[2𝑎𝑏2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2 2 + 1 + 𝑦𝑚 )] 2 2

2.3.1.5. Moment around the axis d’-d’

The resultant force “FRd’” is the force “P1” acting on column 1 subtracting the pressure volume
of the area formed by the axis d’-d’ and the corners 1 and 2 to the left of the footing, this is
presented of the follows
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
𝑑 1−∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (34)
( ) ⁄2 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 ),4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-

𝑑 1 − (35)
4𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )
Now, the gravity center “ycd” of the soil pressure the area formed by the axis d’-d’ and the
corners 1 and 2 with respect the axis “X” is obtained
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
𝑦 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
( )⁄2
𝑦 𝑑 (36)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
(𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
( ) ⁄2

3𝑎𝑏1 (4 1 − 2𝐿 + 𝑐3 − 𝑐1 ) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )(3 1 − 2𝐿 + 𝑐3 − 𝑐1 )

𝑦 𝑑 (37)
3,4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-
The moment around the axis d’-d’ is
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 755

𝑐3 𝑐1 − 𝑐3
𝑑 1 .𝐿 − /− 𝑑𝑑 .𝑦 𝑑 − 1 +𝐿+ / (38)
2 2
where: FRdd is the soil pressure the area formed by the axis d’-d’ and the corners 1 and 2.
Substituting Eqs. (35)-(37) into Eq. (38) is obtained
𝑐3 𝑅(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )2 ,6𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-
𝑑 1 .𝐿 − /− (39)
2 24𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.3.1.6 Moment around the axis e’-e’

The resultant force “FRe’” is the sum of the force “P1” acting on column 1 and the force “P2”
acting on column 2 subtracting the pressure volume of the area formed by the axis e’-e’ and the
corners 1 and 2 to the left of the footing, this is presented of the follows
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
1+ 2−∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (40)
( ) ⁄2 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 ),4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-

1 + 2 − (4 )
4𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )
Now, the gravity center “yce” of the soil pressure the area formed by the axis e’-e’ and the
corners 1 and 2 with respect the axis “X” is found
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
𝑦 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
( )⁄2
𝑦 (42)
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
(𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦
( )⁄2

3𝑎𝑏1 (4 1 − 2𝐿 − 𝑐3 − 𝑐1 ) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )(3 1 − 2𝐿 − 𝑐3 − 𝑐1 )

𝑦 (43)
3,4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-
The moment around the axis e’-e’ is obtained
𝑐3 𝑐3 𝑐1 + 𝑐3
1 .𝐿 + /+ 2 . /− (𝑦 − 1 +𝐿+ ) (44)
2 2 2
where: FRee is the soil pressure the area formed by the axis e’-e’ and the corners 1 and 2.
Substituting Eqs. (41)-(43) into Eq. (44) is found
𝑐3 𝑐3 𝑅(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )2 ,6𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-
1 .𝐿 + /+ 2. /− (45)
2 2 24𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.3.2 Bending shear (unidirectional shear force)

The critical sections for bending shear are obtained at a distance “d” starting the junction of the
column with the footing as seen in Fig. 6, these are presented in sections f1’-f1’, f2’-f2’, g’-g’, h’-h’
and i’-i’.
756 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Fig. 6 Critical sections for bending shear

2.3.2.1 Bending shear on axis f1’-f1’

Bending shear acting on the axis f1’-f1’ of the footing “Vff1” is obtained through the pressure
volume of the area formed by the axis f1’-f1’ with a width “w1=c1+d/2” and the free end of the
rectangular footing, where the greatest pressure is presented
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (46)
2 𝑑

[ 1 𝑎(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏11 2 ),2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐2 − 2𝑑) − 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )- + 4 1 *3𝑎2 [𝑏1 2 − (𝑐2 + 2𝑑)2 ]

− 3𝑎𝑏1 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + 1 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )2 +] 2𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏11 2 ) (47)

2.3.2.2 Bending shear on axis f2’-f2’

Bending shear acting on the axis f2’-f2’ of the footing “Vff2” is obtained through the pressure
volume of the area formed by the axis f2’-f2’ with a width “w2=c3+d” and the free end of the
rectangular footing, where the greatest pressure is obtained
( ) 2 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (48)
( ) 2 2 𝑑

[ 2 𝑎(𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 ),2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐4 − 2𝑑) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-

+ 2 *3,2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-2 − 2𝑎2 (𝑐4 + 2𝑑)2 + 2
2 (𝑏
1 − 𝑏2 )2 +]
[2𝑎2 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 )(𝑏21 2 + 𝑏22 2 )] (49)

2.3.2.3 Bending shear on axis g’-g’

Bending shear acting on the axis g’-g’ of the footing “Vfg” is the force “P1” acting on column 1
subtracting the pressure volume of the area formed by the axis g'-g’ and the corners 1 and 2 to the
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 757

left of the footing, this is as follows

⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
1−∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (50)
𝑑 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅(𝑐1 + 𝑑),2𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(𝑐1 + 𝑑)-

1 − (5 )
𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.3.2.4 Bending shear on axis h’-h’

Bending shear acting on the axis h’-h’ of the footing “Vfh” is the force “P1” acting on column 1
subtracting the pressure volume of the area formed by the axis h'-h’ and the corners 1 and 2 to the
left of the footing, this is as follows
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
1 −∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (52)
( ) ⁄2 𝑑 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 − 𝑐3 − 2𝑑),4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 − 𝑐3 − 2𝑑)-

1 − (53)
4𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.3.2.5 Bending shear on axis i’-i’

Bending shear acting on the axis i’-i’ of the footing “Vfi” is the sum of the force “P1” acting on
column 1 and the force “P2” acting on column 2 subtracting the pressure volume of the area
formed by the axis i’-i’ and the corners 1 and 2, which is found to the left of the footing, this is
⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎
1+ 2−∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (54)
( ) ⁄2 𝑑 ⁄2 ( )( )⁄2𝑎

𝑅(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 + 𝑐3 + 2𝑑),4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 + 𝑐3 + 2𝑑)-

𝑅− (55)
4𝑎2 (𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.3.3 Punching shear (bidirectional shear force)

The critical section for the punching shear appears at a distance “d/2” starting the junction of
the column with the footing in the two directions, as shown in Fig. 7.

2.3.3.1 Punching shear for boundary column

The critical section for the punching shear is presented in rectangular section formed by points
5, 6, 7 and 8. Punching shear acting on the footing “Vp1” is the force “P1” acting on column 1
subtracting the pressure volume of the area formed by the points 5, 6, 7 and 8
( 𝑑)⁄2
1 1 −∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (56)
𝑑 ⁄2 ( 𝑑)⁄2

𝑅(2𝑐1 + 𝑑)(𝑐2 + 𝑑)
1 1 − (57)
𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )
758 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Fig. 7 Critical sections for the punching shear supporting a rectangular column

2.3.3.2 Punching shear for inner column

The critical section for the punching shear is presented in rectangular section formed by points
9, 10, 11 and 12. 8. Punching shear acting on the footing “Vp2” is the force “P2” acting on column
2 subtracting the pressure volume of the area formed by the points 9, 10, 11 and 12
(𝑑 ) 2 ( 𝑑)⁄2
2 2−∫ ∫ (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑑𝑥𝑑𝑦 (58)
(𝑑 ) 2 ( 𝑑)⁄2

2𝑅(𝑐3 + 𝑑)(𝑐4 + 𝑑)
2 2 − (59)
𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )

2.4 Classical model for design of boundary trapezoidal combined footings

This model takes into account only the maximum pressure the soil for design of footings and it
is considered uniform at all points on contact area of the footings. The maximum pressure is
In the longitudinal direction
2𝑅 24 𝑇 𝑏1
𝑚𝑎 + (60)
𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 ) 𝑎(𝑏1 + 𝑏2 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏2 2 )
In the transverse direction
To the boundary column is
2 1 24 1 𝑏1
𝑚𝑎 + (6 )
1 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 ) 1 (𝑏1 + 𝑏11 )(𝑏1 2 + 𝑏11 2 )
To the intermediate column is
2 2 2 2 ,2𝑎𝑏1 − (2𝐿 + 𝑐1 − 2 )(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )-
𝑚𝑎 + 2 (62)
2 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 ) 𝑎 2 (𝑏21 + 𝑏22 )(𝑏21 + 𝑏22 2 )
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 759

2.4.1 Moments
Critical sections for moments are shown in Fig. 5, these are presented in sections a1’-a1’, a2’-
a2’, b’-b’, c’-c’, d’-d’ and e’-e’. The moment in each section is
2 (𝑏
𝑚𝑎 1 ,3𝑎 1 − 𝑐2 )2 − 3𝑎 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(𝑏1 − 𝑐2 ) + 1
2 (𝑏
1 − 𝑏2 )2 -
𝑎 (63)
24𝑎2
𝑚𝑎 2 *3,2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐4 ) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-2 + 2
2 (𝑏
1 − 𝑏2 )2 +
𝑎 (64)
96𝑎2
2
1 𝑐1 𝑚𝑎 𝑐1 ,3𝑎𝑏1 − 𝑐1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )-
− (65)
2 6𝑎

√ 𝑚𝑎 𝑎[ 𝑚𝑎 𝑎𝑏1 2 − 2 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )] − 𝑚𝑎 ( 1 𝑏2 + 𝑏1 2)
𝑦𝑚 (66)
𝑚𝑎 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )
2
(𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )( 1 − 𝑦𝑚 ) 1 𝑦𝑚
𝑦 + + (67)
6[2𝑎𝑏2 + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(𝑎 + 2 + 𝑦𝑚 )] 2 2
2 2
𝑐1 𝑚𝑎 2𝑏2 ( 1 − 𝑦𝑚 ) + 𝑏1 0𝑎2 − ( 2 + 𝑦𝑚 ) 13 (𝑦 − 𝑦𝑚 )
1. 1− − 𝑦𝑚 / − (68)
2 2𝑎
2
𝑐3 𝑚𝑎 (2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 ) ,6𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 − 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-
𝑑 1 .𝐿 − /− (69)
2 48𝑎
2
𝑐3 𝑐3 𝑚𝑎 (2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 ) ,6𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 )-
1 .𝐿 + /+ 2. /− (70)
2 2 48𝑎

2.4.2 Bending shear (unidirectional shear force)

Critical sections for bending shear (seen in Fig. 6), these are presented in sections f1’-f1’, f2’-f2’,
g’-g’, h’-h’ and i’-i’. The bending shear in each section is
𝑚𝑎 1 ,2𝑎(𝑏1
− 𝑐2 − 2𝑑) − 1 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )-
(7 )
4𝑎
𝑚𝑎 2 ,2𝑎(𝑏1 − 𝑐4 − 2𝑑) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 )-
(72)
4𝑎
2
𝑚𝑎 ,2𝑎𝑏1 (𝑐1 + 𝑑) − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(𝑐1 + 𝑑) -
1− (73)
2𝑎
𝑚𝑎 (2𝐿 + 𝑐1 − 𝑐3 − 2𝑑) 4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 − 𝑐3 − 2𝑑)-
,
1− (74)
8𝑎
𝑚𝑎 (2𝐿 + 𝑐1 + 𝑐3 + 2𝑑) 4𝑎𝑏1 − (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 )(2𝐿 + 𝑐1 + 𝑐3 + 2𝑑)-
,
𝑅− (75)
8𝑎

2.4.3 Punching shear (bidirectional shear force)

The critical sections for the punching shear are presented in Fig. 7.
760 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

 The punching shear for boundary column

1 1 − 𝑚𝑎 (𝑐1 + 𝑑 2)(𝑐2 + 𝑑) (76)
 The punching shear for inner column
2 2 − 𝑚𝑎 (𝑐3 + 𝑑)(𝑐4 + 𝑑) (77)

3. Application

The design of a boundary trapezoidal combined footing supporting two square columns is
presented in Fig. 3, with the basic information following: the two columns are of 40×40 cm;
L=5.00 m; H=1.5 m; MDx1=80 kN-m; MLx1=60 kN-m; MDy1=120 kN-m; MLy1=80 kN-m; PD1=700
kN; PL1=500 kN; MDx2=60 kN-m; MLx2=40 kN-m; MDy2=80 kN-m; MLy2=60 kN-m; PD2=600 kN;
PL2=400 kN; f’c=21 MPa; fy=420 MPa; qa=250 kN/m2; γppz=24 kN/m3; γpps=15 kN/m3.
Where: H is the depth of the footing, PD is the dead load, PL is the live load, MDx is the moment
around the axis “X-X” of the dead load, MLx is the moment around the axis “X-X” of the live load,
MDy is the moment around the axis “Y-Y” of the dead load, MLy is the moment around the axis “Y-
Y” of the live load.
The loads and moments acting on soil are: P1=1200 kN; Mx1=140 kN-m; My1=200 kN-m;
P2=1000 kN; Mx2=100 kN-m; My2=140 kN-m.
The thickness “t” of the footing is proposed, the first proposal is the minimum thickness of 25
cm marking regulations, subsequently the thickness is revised to meet the following conditions:
moments, bending shear and punching shear. If such conditions are not satisfied is proposed a
greater thickness until it fulfills the three conditions mentioned. The thickness of the footing that
fulfills the three conditions listed above is 95 cm for new model and for classical model is 130 cm,
the available load capacity of the soil “σadm” is 218.95 kN/m2 (new model) and 215.80 kN/m2
(classical model) (Gambhir 2008, González-Cuevas and Robles-Fernandez-Villegas 2005,
McCormac and Brown 2013).
The value of “Cy1” by Eq. (2) is obtained: Cy1 = 2.36 m. The value of “a” is proposed to meet
with Eq. (3) is: a=6.00 m. The value of “b2” is selected according to the first condition by Eq. (4)
is obtained: b2=0.39 m, and to the second condition by Eq. (5) is found: b2=0.87 m, now
substituting the value greater of “b2” into Eq. (6) to obtain the value of “b1” is: b1=3.96 m.
Therefore the dimensions of the boundary trapezoidal combined footing supporting two square
columns are
1 2 36 𝑎 6 00 𝑏2 00 𝑏1 4 00
The mechanical elements (P, Mx, My) acting on the footing are factored:
Pu1=1.2PD1+1.6PL1=1640 kN; Mux1=1.2MDx1+1.6MLx1=192 kN-m; Muy1=1.2MDy1+1.6MLy1=272
kN-m; Pu2=1.2PD2+1.6PL2=1360 kN; Mux2=1.2MDx2+1.6MLx2=136 kN-m; Muy2=1.2MDy2+1.6MLy2
=192 kN-m.

4. Discussion of results

The moments acting on the trapezoidal combined footing of the two models are presented in
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 761

Table 1 Moments acting on the footing

New model Classical model
Moments
Moments (kN-m) Width (m) Moments (kN-m) Width (m)
Parallel to axis “Y-Y”
𝑎 737.56 0.835 788.18 1.01
𝑎 182.73 1.27 221.6 1.62
Parallel to axis “X-X”
265.07 3.80 237.58 3.80
1646.68 2.79 921.14 3.21
𝑑 ‒44.67 1.50 ‒3501.88 1.50
‒239.60 1.30 ‒4187.19 1.30

Table 2 Dimensions of the footing

Concept New model (cm) Classical model (cm)
Parallel to axis “Y-Y” 42.43 39.88
Parallel to axis “X-X” 34.68 81.03
Effective depth after performing different proposals 87 122
Coating 8 8
Total thickness 95 130

Table 3 Bending shear

New model Classical model
Bending shear
Bending shear (kN-m) Width (m) Bending shear (kN-m) Width (m)
Parallel to axis “Y-Y”
481.04 815.94
0.835 1.01
430.55(O.K.) 254.84(O.K.)
– –
1.27 1.62
– –
Parallel to axis “X-X”
1935.69 2577.08
3.36 3.19
704.64(O.K.) –33.44(O.K.)
1117.63 1704.59
1.94 2.11
‒811.16(O.K.) ‒1678.17(O.K.)
– –
0.86 0.69
– –

Table 1. The effective depth for the maximum moment is shown in Table 2.
Bending shear (unidirectional shear force) appears in Table 3. Punching shear (bidirectional
shear force) is presented in Table 4. The reinforcement steel is shown in Table 5. The minimum
development length for deformed bars appears in Table 6. The hook is provided in the longitudinal
reinforcement steel for the classical model on top the left side, i.e., where the boundary column is
762 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Table 4 Punching shear

Punching shear New model (kN) Classical model (kN)
Boundary column
1 5081.19 8821.86
2 8995.07 17307.45
3 3287.83 5708.26
1 1427.91(O.K.) 1168.85(O.K.)
Intermediate column
1 8779.74 15704.84
2 12645.97 24359.80
3 5681.01 10161.96
2 1037.42(O.K.) 605.90(O.K.)

Table 5 Reinforcement steel

Reinforcement steel New model cm2 Classical model cm2
Longitudinal reinforcement steel (direction the axis “Y”)
Main steel 51.35 20.10
Steel at the top Minimum steel 80.83 130.41
81.12(16Ø1”) 131.82(26Ø 1”)
Steel proposed
Spacing 17.5 cm Spacing 12 cm
Main steel 7.34 97.91
Steel in the bottom Minimum steel 37.66 52.81
40.56(8Ø1”) 101.40(20Ø1”)
Steel proposed
Spacing 17.5 cm Spacing 6 cm
Transverse reinforcement steel (direction the axis “X”)
Temperature steel 102.60 140.40
Steel at the top 106.47(21Ø1”) 141.96(28Ø1”)
Steel proposed
Spacing 29.5 cm Spacing 21.5 cm
Main steel 23.31 17.38
Steel in the bottom under Minimum steel 24.19 41.03
the boundary column 25.35(5Ø1”) 45.63(9Ø1”)
Steel proposed
Spacing 17.5 cm Spacing 12 cm
Main steel 5.59 4.82
Steel in the bottom under Minimum steel 36.79 65.81
the inner column 40.56(8Ø1”) 65.91(13Ø1”)
Steel proposed
Spacing 17.5 cm Spacing 12 cm
Steel in bottom of the Temperature steel 66.60 78.86
excess parts of the 70.98(14Ø1”) 81.12(16Ø1”)
columns Steel proposed
Spacing 29.5 cm Spacing 21.5 cm

located. Also the hook is provided in the transverse reinforcement steel for the two models, the
width of the footing up where the hook is needed from b2 to the left side is: 277.70 cm, and the
distance “x” from “b2” is: 355.40 cm.
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 763

Table 6 Development length

Concept Steel at the top Steel in the bottom
ψt 1.3 1.0
ψe = λ 1.0 1.0
ld (cm) 178.02 110.85
New model 233.00(O.K.) 42.00(Fails)
la(cm)
Classic model 150.00(Fails) 42.00(Fails)

(a) New model (b) Classical model

Fig. 8 Design drawings showing the dimensions and provided reinforcement steel of the boundary
trapezoidal combined footing

Fig. 8 shows the dimensions and the reinforcement steel of the boundary trapezoidal combined
footing for the two models.
The results of the problem considered in term of the materials used for the construction of
boundary trapezoidal combined footings through the application of two different models, we
concluded the following:
(a) For the concrete, there is a saving of 27% in the new model with respect to the classical
model.
(b) For reinforcement steel in direction of axis “Y” of the footing, there is a saving up a 38% in
some parts for the new model with respect to the classical model, and in direction of axis “X” of
the footing, there is a saving of 25 % in some parts for the new model with respect to the classical
model.

5. Conclusions

Footings are structural elements that transmit the column or wall loads to the underlying soil
764 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

below the structure. Footings are designed to transmit these loads to the soil without exceeding its
safe bearing capacity, to prevent excessive settlement of the structure to a tolerable limit, to
minimize differential settlement, and to prevent sliding and overturning.
This means that can have great savings in terms of materials used (reinforcement steel and
concrete) for the fabrication of boundary trapezoidal combined footings under conditions
mentioned above. Since that the principle in civil engineering, in terms of structural conditions is
that be safe and economical, and the last is not satisfied in classical model.
The mathematical approach suggested in this paper produces results that have a tangible
accuracy for all problems, main part of this research for find the solution more economical.
The new model presented in this paper for the structural design of boundary trapezoidal
combined footings subjected to an axial load and moment in two directions in each column, also it
can be applied to others cases: 1) The footings subjected to a concentric axial load, 2) The footings
subjected to an axial load and moment in one direction. Moreover, the new model is the most
appropriate, since it is more economic and also is adjusted to real conditions.
The model presented in this paper applies only for design of boundary trapezoidal combined
footings, the structural member is assumed to be rigid and the supporting soil layers elastic, which
meet expression of the bidirectional bending, i.e., the variation of pressure is linear. The
suggestions for future research, when is presented another type of soil, by example in totally
cohesive soils (clay soils) and totally granular soils (sandy soils), the pressure diagram is not linear
and should be treated differently (see Fig. 1).

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper was financially supported by the Faculty of Engineering,
Science and Architecture of Juarez University of Durango State, Campus Gómez Palacio,
Durango, México.

References

ACI 318S-13 (American Concrete Institute) (2013), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary, Committee 318.
Agrawal, R. and Hora, M.S. (2012), “Nonlinear interaction behaviour of infilled frame-isolated footings-soil
system subjected to seismic loading”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 44(1), 85-107.
Bowles, J.E. (2001), Foundation analysis and design, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Calabera-Ruiz, J. (2000), Calculo de Estructuras de Cimentación, Intemac Ediciones, México.
Chen, W.R., Chen, C.S and Yu, S.Y. (2011), “Nonlinear vibration of hybrid composite plates on elastic
foundations”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 37(4), 367-383.
Das, B.M., Sordo-Zabay, E. and Arrioja-Juarez, R. (2006), Principios de ingeniería de cimentaciones,
Cengage Learning Latín América, México.
Gambhir, M.L. (2008), Fundamentals of Reinforced Concrete Design, Prentice-Hall, of India Private
Limited.
Gere, J.M. and Goodno, B.J. (2009), Mecánica de Materiales, Cengage Learning, México.
González-Cuevas, O.M. and Robles-Fernández-Villegas, F. (2005), Aspectos fundamentales del concreto
reforzado, Limusa, México.
Guler, K. and Celep, Z. (2005), “Response of a rectangular plate-column system on a tensionless Winkler
 Design of boundary combined footings of trapezoidal form using a new model 765

foundation subjected to static and dynamic loads”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 21(6), 699-712.
Kurian, N.P. (2005), Design of foundation systems, Alpha Science Int'l Ltd., India.
Luévanos-Rojas, A. (2012a), “A Mathematical model for dimensioning of footings square”, I.RE.C.E., 3(4),
346-350.
Luévanos-Rojas, A. (2012b), “A mathematical model for the dimensioning of circular footings”, Far East J.
Mat. Sci., 71(2), 357-367.
Luévanos-Rojas, A. (2013), “A mathematical model for dimensioning of footings rectangular”, ICIC
Express Lett. Part B: Appl., 4(2), 269-274.
Luévanos-Rojas, A., Faudoa-Herrera, J.G., Andrade-Vallejo, R.A. and Cano-Alvarez M.A. (2013), “Design
of isolated footings of rectangular form using a new model”, Int. J. Innov. Comput. I., 9(10), 4001-4022.
Luévanos-Rojas, A. (2014a), “A comparative study for dimensioning of footings with respect to the contact
surface on soil”, Int. J. Innov. Comput. I., 10(4), 1313-1326.
Luévanos-Rojas, A. (2014b), “Design of isolated footings of circular form using a new model”, Struct. Eng.
Mech., 52(4), 767-786.
Luévanos-Rojas, A. (2014c), “Design of boundary combined footings of rectangular shape using a new
model”, Dyna-Colombia, 81(188), 199-208.
Maheshwari, P. and Khatri, S. (2012), “Influence of inclusion of geosynthetic layer on response of combined
footings on stone column reinforced earth beds”, Geomech. Eng., 4(4), 263-279.
McCormac, J.C. and Brown, R.H. (2013), Design of Reinforced Concrete, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Mohamed, F.M.O., Vanapalli, S.K. and Saatcioglu, M. (2013), “Generalized Schmertmann equation for
settlement estimation of shallow footings in saturated and unsaturated sands”, Geomech. Eng., 5(4), 363-
377.
Orbanich, C.J., Dominguez, P.N. and Ortega, N.F. (2012), “Strenghtening and repair of concrete foundation
beams whit fiber composite materials”, Mater. Struct., 45, 1693-1704.
Orbanich, C.J. and Ortega, N.F. (2013), “Analysis of elastic foundation plates with internal and perimetric
stiffening beams on elastic foundations by using Finite Differences Method”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 45(2),
169-182.
Piskunov, N. (2004), Cálculo Diferencial e Integral - Tomos 1 y 2, Limusa, México.
Punmia, B.C., Ashok, K.J. and Arun, K.J. (2007), Limit State Design of Reinforced Concrete, Laxmi
Publications (P) Limited, New Delhi, India.
Rad, A.B. (2012), “Static response of 2-D functionally graded circular plate with gradient thickness and
elastic foundations to compound loads”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 44(2), 139-161.
Shahin M.A. and Cheung E.M. (2011), “Stochastic design charts for bearing capacity of strip footings”,
Geomech. Eng., 3(2), 153-167.
Smith-Pardo, J.P. (2011), “Performance-based framework for soil-structure systems using simplified rocking
foundation models”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 40(6), 763-782.
Tomlinson, M.J. (2008), Cimentaciones, Diseño y Construcción, Trillas, México.
Varghese, P.C. (2009), Design of reinforced concrete foundations, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
India.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M.H., Xiao, Y. and Ma, B.H. (2011), “Nonlinear analysis of finite beam resting on Winkler
with consideration of beam-soil interface resistance effect”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 38(5), 573-592.

CC

View publication stats