Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

To Design a Mat or Raft Foundation:

1. Dterminer la capacit portante de la Fondation


2. Dterminer le tassement de la Fondation.
3. Dtermine le tassement diffrentiel
4. Dterminer la distribution des contraintes sous la Fondation
5. Concevoir des lments structuraux de la Fondation mat laide de la distribution des
contraintes obtenue (4).

a) The mat foundation is assumed to be a rigid foundation

b) The mat foundation is assumed to be a Flexible Foundation; here used Beam on Elastic

Factor of Safety:

For sand and clay F.S. = 3

In most of the case FS > 1.75 to 2


BEARING CAPACITY AND STABILITY OF MAT OR RAFT FOUNDATIONS

1. Introduction

La capacit dun sol pour supporter une charge dune Fondation structurelle sans dfaut en
cisaillement est connue comme sa capacit portante.

Dpend de la stabilit de la Fondation :

1. la capacit portante du sol sous la Fondation.

2. le tassement du sol sous la Fondation.

Il y a, par consquent, deux conditions de stabilit indpendante remplir tant donn que la
rsistance au cisaillement du sol fournit la capacit portante et les proprits de consolidation
dterminent le tassement.

En raison de leur grande largeur, fondations matelas sur sables et graviers nont pas compte des
problmes de capacit.

Cependant, capacit portante peut tre important dans les limons et les argiles, surtout si des
conditions non draines.

Lchec de Silo grains Fargo dcrite au chapitre 6 (seconde dition, les principes de conception de la
Fondation et les pratiques Donald P. Coduto, (2001) est un exemple notable de portant le dfaut de
capacit en argile sature.

Nous pouvons valuer la capacit portante en utilisant les techniques danalyse dfinis au chapitre 6
(seconde dition, principes de conception de base et pratiques, Donald P. Coduto, (2001).
Il est recommand de concevoir le tapis donc la portance en tout point est infrieur la capacit
portante admissible.
Major Points for Bearing Capacity of Raft or Mat Foundations

1. Mat foundation are essentially large spread footings that usually encompass the entire
footprint of a structure. They are often an appropriate choice for structures that are too heavy for
spread footings.

2. The analysis and design of mats must include an evaluation of the flexural stresses and must
provide sufficient flexural strength to resist these stresses.

3. The oldest and simplest method of analyzing mat is the rigid method. It assumes that the mat
is much more rigid than the underlying soil, which means the magnitude and distribution of bearing
pressure is easy to determine. This means the shears, moment, and deformations in the mat are
easily determined. However, this method is not an accurate representation because the assumption
of rigidity is not correct.

4. Nonrigid analyses are superior because they consider the flexural deflections in the mat and
the corresponding redistribution of the soil bearing pressure.

5. Nonrigid methods must include a definition of soilstructure interaction. This is usually done
using a bed of spring analogy, with each spring having a linear forcedisplacement function as
defined by the coefficient of subgrade reaction, ks.

6. The simplest and oldest nonrigid method is the Winkler method, which uses independent
springs, all of which have same ks. This method is an improvement over rigid analyses, but still does
not accurately model soil structure interaction, primarily because it does not consider coupling
effects.

7. The coupled method is an extension of the Winkler method that considers coupling between
the springs.

8. The pseudocoupled method uses independent spring, but adjusts the ks values to implicitly
account for coupling effects.

9. The multiple parameter and finite element method are more advance ways of describing soil-
structure interaction.

10. The coefficient of subgrade reaction is difficult to determine. Fortunately, the mat design is
often not overly sensitive to global changes in ks. Parametric studies are often appropriate.
11. If the Winkles method is used to describe soilstructure interaction, and geometry is not too
complex, the structural analysis may be performed closedform solutions. However, these methods
are generally considered obstacle.

12. Most structural analyses are performed using numerical methods, especially for nite element
method. This method uses finite elements to model the mat and principle, it also could used the
multiple parameter model.

13. A design could be based entirely on a threedimensional finite element analysis includes the
soil, mat, and superstructure. However, such analyses are beyond rent practices, mostly because
they are difficult to set up and require especially powerful computers.

14. The total settlement is best determined using the method described in Chapter 6 (Second
Edition, Foundation Design Principles and Practices, Donald P. Coduto, (2001). Do not use the
coefficient of subgrade reaction to determine total settlement.

15. Bearing capacity is not a problem with sands and gravely, but can be important a silts and
clays. It should be checked using the methods describe in Chapter 6(Second Edition, Foundation
Design Principles and Practices, Donald P. Coduto, (2001).
2.3.3 Calculation and Estimation Bearing Capacity of Mat (or Raft) Foundation
The mat foundation must be designed to limit settlement to a tolerable amount. This settlement may
include the following:

1. Consolidation including any secondary effects

2. Immediate or elastic

3. A combination of consolidation and immediate amounts.

A mat must be stable against a deep shear failure, which may result in either a rotational failure,
typified by the Transcona elevator failure (White, 1953), or vertical (or punching) failure. A uniform
vertical punching failure would not be particularly serious, as the effect would simply be a large
settlement that could probably be landscaped; however, as the settlement is not likely to be uniform
or predicted as such, this mode should de treated with concern equal to that for the deepseated
shear failure.

The bearingcapacity equations of Table 2.1 may be used to compute the soil capacity, e.g.

Use B = least mat dimension and D = depth of mat. The allowable soil pressure is

obtains by applying a suitable factor of safety (2C for Footing) and any applicable reduction for mat
width B as suggested as follows:
One can use this reduction factor with any of the bearingcapacity methods to give

When the bearing capacity is based on penetration tests (e.g., SPT, CPT) in sands
and sandy gravel, one may use Eq. (2.2) rewritten [see Meyerhof (1965)] as Eq. (2.3)

The factor 0.08 converts Meyerhofs original equation to allow a 50 percent increase in bearing
capacity and to produce kPa. The bracket ratio of ( Ha/25.0) allows the reader to use any specified
settlement, since the original equation was based on settlement of 25 mm (1 inch). For a mat the
ratio ((B + F3)/B) 1.0 and is neglected.

With qc (in kPa) from a CPT we can use Eq. (2.4) to estimate an N55 value for use in Eq.(2.3). A typical
computation for N55 which you can use as a guide is given in Fig. 2.1. For CPT in cohesive soil one can
use Eq. (2.5) to obtain the undrained shear strength

( = 0 case) su and use the bearing capacity equations (Meyerhof, Hense, or Vesic) from Table 2.1
simplified to Eq. (2.6).

Alternatively, use Eqs. (2.7) directly with qc. In most cases the mat will be place as

cohesive soil, where qu (or qc) from standard penetration test is the principal strength data available.
In these cases SPT sampling is usually supplemented with several pushed thin walled tube sample so
that laboratory unconfined (or confined triaxial) compression test can be performed to obtain what
are generally considered more reliable strength parameters.

Any triaxial laboratory tests may be CK0 XX, as indicated in Sec. 2BB (Bowles, Joseph E (1996),
Foundation Analysis and Design, 5thEd, Mc-Graw Hill International Edition), and either (or both)
compression (case 1) and extension (case 3) type of Fig. 2.1. Alternatively, in situ test may to be
performed, such as the pressuremeter or borehole shear, to obtain the design strength data.
* These method require a trial process to obtain design base dimension since width B and length L
are needed to compute shape, depth, and influence factors.
See sec. 4H when ii <1.( Bowles, JE (1996), Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition)