FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING FOUNDATIONS

FINAL PROJECT

GROUP 7B

STUDENT: KAREN YOJHANA GARCIA RAMOS

TEACHER ING. SEBASTIAN RIVERA

DATE OF DELIVERY

April 23, 2019

Vll SEMESTER

1
1.INTRODUCTION______________________________________________________3

2.LOCATION___________________________________________________________3

3.GENERAL PARAMETERS_______________________________________________4

4.MAP ANALYSIS_______________________________________________________5

4.1. CHAPINERO, BOGOTA D.C. GEOTECNIC MAP_________________________6

4.2. BOGOTÁ GEOLOGICAL MAP________________________________________8

4.3. SEISMIC MAP____________________________________________________11

5 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE QUANTITY OF DRILLING REQUIRED ACCORDING TO

NSR-10_________________________________________________________14
5.1. STRUCTURE CATEGORY _________________________________________14
5.2 THE BORING_____________________________________________________15
5.3. BORING DEPTH __________________________________________________15
5.4 SPACING BETWEEN DRILLS ________________________________________16

6. IN SITU BORING LOCALIZATION-________________________________________17

7. CALCULATE THE BORING PRICE, LOOKING FOR THE TYPICAL COSTS________17

8.TEST SPT – DATES____________________________________________________17

8.1. IDENTIFICATION OF STRATA_______________________________________18

8.2 SAMPLE OF THE BORING__________________________________________19

8.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXERCISE SPT______________________________19
8.3.1INITIALDATA__________________________________________________19

9. CALCULATIONS______________________________________________________20

10.PROFILESTRATIGRAPHIC_____________________________________________21

11. CALCULATE WITH THE NEW DATA____________________________________24

12.PROFILESTRATIGRAPHIC NEW________________________________________26

13.DISTRIBUTION OF THE FOUNDATION THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING._______27

14. FOR THE DESIGN OF THE EC FOUNDATION_____________________________28

15. FOR THE FOUNDATION A-C A RECTANGULAR FOUNDATION WITH

ECCENTRICITY.________________________________________________________31

2
16. FOUNDATION A-A, AN INCLINED LOAD_________________________________ 38

17.CONCLUTION_______________________________________________________44

3
 1. Introduction
This soil study will be carried out for the construction and design of the foundation for the
Gallery Loft 52 building that is located in the sector of Chapinero. For this reason, according
to the NSR-10 title H chapter 3 table H.3.1-1 Classification of construction units by
categories, the building is classified as a medium construction unit.

In addition, the analysis of the geological, geotechnical, seismic and hydrological maps of
the place in which the construction is located is carried out.

Based on the information contemplated in title H of NSR 10, the boring required for the
study of soils is determined. Finally, it proceeds to locate the boring points on the place in
which the building is located and the required cost of the process.

In the second part of this document you will find the design of three shoes one square, one
eccentric and one rectangular with inclined load and finally you can appreciate the costs of
the execution of the shoes

2.Location
The soil study will be located in the city of Bogota in the geographic coordinates: latitude
°63'95"N and longitude 74° 06.71 "W. It is located in the Cundi-boyacense high plateau
which is an area of high and flatlands located in the eastern mountain range of the Andes,
between the Colombian departments of Cundinamarca and Boyacá.

GALLERY LOFT 52 it is located in Bogotá Cl. 52 #14-52

Figure #1: Facade of the Gallery loft 52 building. Source https://galleryconstructora.com/our-works/gallery

4
 Figure #2: Location of the Gallery loft 52 building. Source Mapas bogota, 2017

3. General parameters

Address: Bogotá Cl. 52 #14-52

Use: residential

Number of Floors = 7

Building size

Front: 30.04m

Depth: 24.2m

Heights
Height first floors: 3.0 m

Height floors tipo: 2.50m

Antepecho de la terrace:1.30m

Acabados:

first floors: Porcelana

floors: Porcelana

Roof: cielo raso en madera

5
Terrace: porcelana y membrana aislante

Total building weight: 37609.21064 KN

4.Map Analysis

4.1. CHAPINERO, BOGOTA D.C. GEOTECNIC MAP

Figure #4: Geotecnic map of Bogota Source: society colombiana of geotechnics

6
 La geotecnia del suelo en el cual se
encuentra la edificación corresponde
a un suelo aluvial

Figure #5: Geotecnic map of Bogota Source: society colombiana of geotechnics

Alluvial soils are soils that have developed over time as a result of sediments deposited by
periodic flooding of streams or rivers.
The project is located between the Formation and the complexes of cones or fans, according
to the Zoning document of the Bogotá seismic response, which is found in the origins of the
Bogotá, Tunjuelo, Juan Amarillo and Fucha rivers. It presents geo slightly wavy, slightly
dissected flat forms, which rise about 5m on average over the alluvial plains. Its composition
is predominantly clay loam. In general, these units are composed of banks of blocks, pebbles
and pebbles within a sandy clay matrix in different zones. Considering thus the environment
of deposition as fluvial.

● The alluvial soils in the Chapinero zone tend to have the following characteristics.

Name: Alluvial Soil

Geotec-hnics: Coarse to medium alluvial soil

Geology: Low Terrace

Geomorpholo-gy: Plain

Maincom- position: loose to compacted clayey sand

Behavior: Medium to highbearing capacity low compressibility, susceptible to

liquefaction and unstable in open-pit excavations.
Thickness: 50 - 250 m
7
The existing materials in the basins are exposed to physical, chemical and biological
processes that can act individually or simultaneously. Sediments, of any size, that are
generated in a basin, are the result of weathering caused by these processes (Parise et al,
2004).

● Overview of an alluvial deposit formation for different events.

Figure #6: Overview of an alluvial deposit formation

Source: Colombian society of Geotechnics
● Most fluvial deposits are the clastic type. This allows to classify them in one of the
following groups: gravel, sand and finely granular. These groups respond to different
processes of separation and selection of sediment load. Even deposits made up of
mixtures of them can be classified based on the size of the predominant particles.
(Fletcher Gordon 1978)
4.2. Bogotá Geological Map

Figure #7: Geological formation of Bogotá Source: Servicio geologico Colombiano

8
Zoom in the interest zone where the building is located

Figure #8: Geological formation of Bogotá Source: Servicio geologico Colombiano

The geology corresponds to a lacustrine fluvial deposit with clay content, banks of sand and
gravel, in addition to the presence of peat and volcanic ashes. This kind of deposit is denoted
by the acronym Qtb

Geological faults

Although the faults and discontinuities are not close to the study project, it is recommended
to observe in detail the problems close to the construction.

9
 ● Close to this formation, there are two geological faults, one of them is the Bogotá
fault classified as an overrun fault, which is so called because it is a type of reverse
fault, that is, a break in the Earth's crust. in which has been a relative displacement,
in which rocks of a lower stratigraphic position are pushed upwards, above the most
recent stratums denoted in the following image

Faults of
Bogotá

Figure #9: Geological formation of Bogotá Source: Colombian Geological service

● The second fault is called the Usaquén fault which belongs to a covered fault
because in some cases the faults can be covered by sediments being buried
fractures, then it is called "blind" or "hidden" faults.

Faults of
Usaquén

Figure #10: Geological formation of Bogotá Source: Geological service Colombiano

10
 ● The Bogota Fault borders the eastern hills of the Savanna (Monserrate and
Guadeloupe) and extends from the Sumapaz Moorland to the south of the Savanna
to the north of Bogota city and probably continues north further fossilized by
Quaternary deposits. This fault presents a general course N100E and is inverse with
vergence to the West; From the sector of Usme to Usaquén.

In the Bogota Seismic Microzoning Project (INGEOMINAS, 1996), no signs of recent activity
were found, so it was cataloged as an uncertain activity.

4.3. Seismic Map

Bogotá have detailed studies of the dynamic response of soils by regional seismic activity,
known as seismic microzone. From these studies, earthquake resistance parameters are
defined for buildings that are regulated in the District Decree l 523 of 2010 by which the
Seismic Microzonification of Bogotá D.C.

Zona de
estudio

Figure #11: Microzonificación Sísmica de Bogotá D.C. Source:

https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/rcg/article/view/43865/51662

Description of the geotechnical zones for seismic response The geotechnical characteristics
for seismic response are presented below from a zone of alluvial soil corresponding to the
location of the construction

11
Response spectra and spectral relationships calculated for the alluvial zone

(Figura 12. Respond Spectrum and Spectral Relationships for Lacustrine Zone. (FOPAE, 2010))

For all the surface records of the Quetame earthquake on May 27, 2008, the response
spectra were calculated and the spectral relationships between the surface response and
the nearest Down Hole register, basically the northern area, were estimated approximately.
of the city worked with the record of CUAGR, the center and south of the city with the record
of CBOG1 shown above.

According to Bogota's Seismic Microzonification study, the Sabana de Bogotá presents a

variation in the values of the spectral accelerations
of its soils, ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 g (Ingeominas and Universidad de Los Andes). For the
sector that corresponds to the metropolitan area of Bogotá and it is related to the Sabana's
formation

● Amplification of acoustic waves by type of soil and changes in topography

12
Figure #12: Amplification of acoustic waves by type of soil and changes in topography. Source: IDIGER, 2018

 Location of the Gallery loft 52 building in the map zoning of the seismic response of
the soils of Bogotá D.C.

● As it can be seen, the building is located in the seismic response area called foothills
B, in which the seismic behavior of this kind of soil is characterized by having an
average wave speed between 300-750 (m/s), also in this area there are effects
produced by topographic amplification, these occur when there are changes in the
slope of the ground affecting the seismic wave causing them to be refracted in such
a way that the seismic waves are amplified and the intensity increases in the surface.

Foothills B is characterized for being a colluvial and alluvial Soil with thickness superior to
12 m: Blocks, edges, and gravel with sandy clay.

Hydrology of Bogota

Rain
To show the variation during a month, the rainfall rainfall accumulated during a period of 31
days centered around each day of the year is shown. Bogotá has an extreme variation of
monthly rainfall per season.
Most of the rain falls during the 31 days centered around April 29, with an average total
accumulation of 210 millimeters.
The approximate date with the least amount of rain is January 14, with an average total
accumulation of 40 millimeters.

13
Figure #13. Total Annual Average Precipitation of Bogotá, Average Multi-annual. (IDEAM,
2014)

The months with the highest relative humidity are April, May and November (77%). The
months with the lowest relative humidity are July and August (74%).

Figure #14: Total Annual Average Precipitation of Bogotá, Average Multi-annual. (IDEAM, 2014)

The wettest month (with highest precipitation) is October (137mm). The driest month (with
lowest precipitation) is July (35mm).

14
Figure #15: Total Annual Average Precipitation of Bogotá, Average Multi-annual. (IDEAM,
2014)

Average natural humidity map

It is estimated that at the location of the project the average natural humidity is at least
50% due to the proximity to the hills, since near them there is greater precipitation.

Figure #16: Humedad natural Source: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/rcg/article/view/43865/51662

15
 5.Establishment of the quantity of drilling required according to NSR-10, depth,
and separation. and the verification with the methodology of the American Society
of Civil Engineers.

5.1. Structure Category

● Through the NSR 10, it was determined that the structure belongs to the medium
construction category unit since it has 7 floors and the weight per column does not
exceed 1000 KN

Table #2: classification of construction by categories

Source:https://www.idrd.gov.co/sitio/idrd/sites/default/files/imagenes/9titulo-
i-nsr-100.pdf

● When determining that the structure belongs to a medium category it was possible
to establish by the following table the depth of boring and the minimum boring

Table #3: minimum number of boring

Source:https://www.idrd.gov.co/sitio/idrd/sites/default/files/imagenes/9titulo-i-nsr-100.pdf

5.2 The Boring

they are perforations made with extreme care and with tools that allow the emergence of
samples from the studied ground. They are taken at a certain depth used to perform a
serious examination of the soil. (Henri Camberfort 1975)

5.3. Boring depth

According to the norm specification, 50% of the probes must comply with the
minimum depth established and the rest of the probes must be in a range close to
half the minimum depth required in this case probing 1 will be carried out at 22 m
depth, the second drilling of 17 m depth, the third drilling, 13 m depth and drilling to
a depth of 8 m

16
5.4 Spacing between drills
● To carry out these borings it is decided that 3 of them have to be done in on a place
that involves more stress by the building and one on lower stress area, in order to
see the behavior of the soil without the greater application of the load. The space
between every boring will be decided to the criteria of the designer.

6.The American Society of Civil Engineers

The American Society of Civil Engineers recommends the following information along with
the parameters a continuation of the reports to obtain a good calculation of buildings.

Table #4: Approximate boreholes separation. Origin: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010.

Estimate the variation of the net effective stress increase, Δσ’, that will result from
the construction of the proposed structure with depth. This variation can be estimated
by using the principles outlined in Chapter 10. Determine the depth D1 at which the
value of Δσ’ is equal to 10% of the average load per unit area of the structure.
Plot the variation of the effective vertical stress, σ’o, in the soil layer with depth.
Compare this with the net stress increase variation, Δσ’, with depth as determined in
Step 1. Determine the depth D2 at which Δσ’=0.05 σ’o.
The smaller of the two depths, D1 and D2, is the approximate minimum depth of the
boring.

Method for heavy steel or concrete constructions, the following equation is established
to determine the depth of the perforations:
Db
=𝑏
S0.7
Where:
Db= Depth of borings

17
S= Number of floors of the building

b= 6, given that you want the depth of the borigns in meters, otherwise 12 if you want the
depth of the borings in feet.

● Building Column distribution plan.

Figure #14: Plan of the distribution of columns Source: own

● Boring distribution

Borings

Figure #15: Boring distribution Source: own

6. In situ boring localization

18
Boring points are located within the criteria of the engineer, but taking into account that the
soil in some parts of the structure has greater compression stress than others. This is where
the three borings were located: (boring 1, boring 2 and boring 3) are in the places that the
most stress is applied because of the foundation slab will also carry a counterweight beam
to counteract the overturning moment of the building.

Figure #16: Boring distribution in google earth Source: own

7. Calculate the boring price, looking for the typical costs per linear meter of the
boring. Use database sources (Construdata).

Table #4: cost table Source: own

8.Test spt – Dates

19
Table #5: Dates table Source: geo consultas Ltda. estudios y diseños geotécnicos

20
8.1 Identification of strata

Table #6: strata identification Dates table Source: geo consultas Ltda. estudios y diseños geotécnicos

21
8.2 Sample of the boring

Figure #17:samples stratums Source: geo consultas Ltda. estudios y diseños geotécnicos

8.3. Development of the exercise spt

8.3.1 Initial data

Table #7:initial data Source: own

9. Calculations

22
 Total stress calculations, pore pressure, effective effort and number of strokes

Table #8 :calculations Source: own

 Corrections factors

Table #9 :calculations Source: own

 Calculate the N60, Cu, OCR, relative density and friction angle

Table #10: calculations Source: own

 By obtaining the angle of friction that for this case is 27 degrees the soil classification
given is a soft clay with the possible presence of illite belonging to the group of the
micas which is a non-expansive clay

23
10.Profile stratigraphic

 The stratigraphic profile of the 22-meter sounding is shown below according to the
data provided

Figure #18: profile stratigraphic Source: own

24
 Second delivery
11. I calculate with the new data
Initial data

Table #11: calculations Source: own

 Total stress calculations, pore pressure, effective effort and number of strokes

Table #12: calculations Source: own

 Corrections factors

Table #13: calculations Source: own

 Calculate the N60, Cu, OCR, relative density and friction angle

Table #14: calculations Source: own

25
12.Profile stratigraphic with the new data

 The stratigraphic profile of the 22-meter sounding is shown below according to the
data provided

Figure #19: profile stratigraphic Source: own

NOTE: Important information

• A depth of 4 m was chosen because the water table is too high and it is not advisable to
build near the water table because there may be sudden movements and changes in the
behavior of the soil, which would affect the foundations

26
• A shoe thickness of 0.20 m was determined due to the Colombian earthquake resistant
standard since in title C subsection c.15 a minimum thickness for footings of 0.20 m is
specified.

• A safety factor of 3 is proposed because there are very high loads and the building is
large. the quality of the construction, the probability and severity of a failure during the
service life of the structure depend on and influence the value of Fs. A second opinion that
the safety factor was a bit high is that with values lower than this they did not comply with
the designs.

Building modeling

The following image shows the model of the building where the analysis and design of the
most critical foundation is made. The modeling is shown in order that the reader size the
structure and also make an idea that the load that can receive a foundation, comes aser of
large dimensions.

Figure #20: Building modeling Source: own

27
13.Distribution of the foundation throughout the building.

Figure #21: distribution of a foundation Source: own

Selection and design of the sneakers

Next, the selected shoes are presented to perform the respective design calculations
Within the foundations of the project, 36 Zapata’s were calculated bearing in mind that the
type of soil found for the work is a soft soil in this case alluvial. The number of foundations
depends on the safety and stability in the construction.

To make the design of the foundation, the ones with the highest load within the 36 mentioned
above are selected, the loads are determined by structural calculations made previously.
Said loads are shown below together with the location of the foundation.

Table of the shoes that support more load

FUNDATION LOAD (KN)

A-C 984.813

E-C 1500.428

A-A 832.146
Table #15: load for shoes: own

28
To know what is the weight that reaches each foundation it is necessary to perform an
analysis of the structure, which allows to obtain the load applied to each shoe and depending
on this the design is made for those who must bear more load.

Location of the foundations

Figure #22: distribution of a foundation Source: own

14.Foundation # 1

For the design of the E-C foundation, a square geometry is proposed because it is the
foundation that must bear the most load. For this proposal, the dimensions must be found
according to the applied load, using the Meyerhof, Hansen equations DeBeer, Vesic,
Terzaghi and other authors.

Initial parameters

Fs 3
Φ´ 27.614
C´ 120
Qall (KN) 1500.428

Nc 23.94
Nq 13.2
NƔ 14.47

29
 Df (m) 4
Ɣsuelo (Kn/m 3
17.5
Ɣs (Kn/m 3
19.83
Ɣd(Kn/m3 16
q(KN/𝑚2 ) 51.3
Table #16: Initial parameters: own

NOTE: Since the water table is located above the footing, it is necessary to call it with the
following equation.

Resulting
q (KN/𝑚2 ) 51.3

It is necessary to take into account the factors of compressibility.

Evening of equations

Matching the Factor of safety

𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 ∗ 𝐵2 [1]

30
 𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 𝐵2
[2]

𝑞𝑢
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 𝐹𝑠
[3]

𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙∗𝐹𝑠
𝑞𝑢 = [4]
𝐵2

According to the equation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Square Foundations

Qu=1.3 C´Nc+qNq+0.4*ɣ*B*Nɣ [5]

The equations 4 and 5 are equaled and solved with the respective value

𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙∗𝐹𝑠
𝐵2
= 1.3 C´Nc+qNq+0.4*ɣ*B*Nɣ [6]

Equation with your rights values

1500.402∗3
𝐵2
= 1.3*120*23.94+64*13.2+0.4*16*B*14.47

The above equation continues to operate until it can be equaled to zero and thus obtain
the value of B remaining as shown below

0=45779.44𝐵2 +92.608𝐵3 -4501.284 [7]

Because equation 7 is of the third order, it is necessary to iterate until finding the value of
B

In this case it is obtained as a result of the iteration that B = 0.982m equaled to 1m

# 4501.206
B (m) 1.000
Ecu 0.000

Qall (KN) Fs qu(KN/m2) qall(KN/m2)

1500.428 3 4513.05436 1504.351453
Table #17: dimensions: own

It is determined that the square foundation must remain with the following dimensions B = 1
m and L = 1 m

31
 Plan view of the EC fundation

Figure #22: foundation E-C Source: own

Next you will see the profile view of the designed foundation

Figure #23: E-C foundation Source: own

32
15.Foundation # 2

For the foundation A-C a rectangular foundation with eccentricity is proposed. In this
proposal the dimensions must be found by the equations of Meyerhof, Hansen, DeBeer,
Vesic, TERZAGHI and other authors, based on the last load applied as the most important
factor.
Initial data

fs 3
Φ´ 27.614
C´ 120
Qall (KN) 984.813

Nc 23.94
Nq 13.2
NƔ 14.47

Df (m) 4
Ɣsuelo (Kn/m 3
17.5
Ɣs (Kn/m3 19.83
Ɣd(Kn/m 3
16
2
q(KN/𝑚 ) 51.3
To determine the dimensions of an eccentric rectangular foundation, use the general bearing
capacity equation shown below (Meyerhof, 1963)

[1]

According to the author DeBeer It is necessary to determine the SHAPE FACTORS to

complete the general bearing capacity equation

The following relationship must be determined in order to obtain the case that must be
executed, which depends on the depth of the rebar and B, knowing that the load is less
than that applied in the previous foundation, the theory is that the dimensions must be

33
smaller at 1 m said that it can be estimated that 4 on any value less than 1 will give a ratio
greater than one, so the following case is selected.

The solutions of these factors are in function of L and B since such values are not known.

𝐵 13.2
Fcs = 1+ *
𝐿 23..94

𝐵
Fqs = 1+ *tan27.61
𝐿

𝐵
FƔs = 1-0.4* 𝐿

1−Fqd
Fcd= Fqd -
23.94∗tan 27.63

4
Fqd= 1+(2*tan 27.62 )∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 *𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 𝐵

FƔd= 1

Fqi= 1

Fci= 1

Fɣi= 1

When obtaining the factors of form and depth we proceed to replace these factors in the
general equation

𝐵 13.2 1−Fqd 𝐵
qu=12 * 23.94 * (1+ 𝐿 * 23..94) * ( Fqd - 23.94∗tan 27.63) * 1 + 64 * 13.2 * (1+ 𝐿 *tan27.61) *
4 1 𝐵
(1+(2*tan 27.62) ∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 * 𝐵) * 1 + 2
* B * 14.47 * 1-0.4 * 𝐿
* 1 * 1 [2]

34
 Being
𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙∗𝐹𝑠 984.813
𝑞𝑢 = 𝐵2
=> q𝑢 = 𝐵∗𝐿
[3]

Equations 2 and 3 are equated

984.813 𝐵 13.2 1−Fqd 𝐵

𝐵∗𝐿
= 12 * 23.94 * (1+ 𝐿 * 23..94) * ( Fqd - 23.94∗tan 27.63) * 1 + 64 * 13.2 * (1+ 𝐿 *tan27.61) *
4 1 𝐵
( 1+(2*tan 27.62) ∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 * ) * 1 + * B * 14.47 * 1-0.4 * * 1 * 1 [4]
𝐵 2 𝐿

Equation 4 should equal (0) leaving everything in terms of B and L

𝐵 13.2 1−Fqd 𝐵
0 = ( (12 * 23.94 * (1+ 𝐿 * 23..94)) * ( Fqd - 23.94∗tan 27.63) * (1 + 64 * 13.2 * (1+ 𝐿 *tan27.61) )*
4 1 𝐵
( 1+(2*tan 27.62) ∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 * 𝐵) * (1 + 2
* B * 14.47 * 1-0.4 * 𝐿
* 1 * 1) ) * (B*L) -
984.813

The above equation must be simplified to its maximum expression. followed by this, a score
should be made by means of excel with the command "goal sick" which will result in the
dimensions of the foundation shown below.

B(m) 0.45
Aprox
L(m) 0.63 0.65
Ecu 0
Table #18:dimensions: own

Because the length of the foundation resulted in 0.63m, it was decided to leave said
measurement at 0.65 m for ease in the construction process

view on floor foundation A-C

35
 Figure #23: foundation A-C Source: own

As a result of the base and length, the factors of form, depth, qall and qu are calculated as
follows.

Fcs 1.768
Fcd 2.977
Fci 1.000
Fqs 1.736
Qall Fs qu(KN/m2) qall (KN/m2)
Fqd 2.934
984.813 3 10470.0103 3490.00344
Fqi 1.000
Table #19:Factors and qall,qu: own FƔs 0.443
FƔd 1.000
Eccentricity for the A-C Fɣi 1.000 foundation

A foundation with an eccentricity of eB = 0.1 and El = 0.12 is proposed

36
 Figure #22: Eccentricity for the A-C foundation Source: own

We proceed to locate the case with which they meet the eccentricities according to the
relationship eB / B and eL / L

eB(m) 0.100 eB/B 0.222

eL(m) 0.120 el/L 0.191

According to the values obtained, the relations of eB / B and eL / L comply with case 1

Where

To give solution to the eccentricity it is necessary to comply with the following equation

Because the value of B1 or L1 is known, the following formula must be applied

3∗0.1
B1= 0.45*(1.5- 0.45 )

37
 B1 (m) 0.375
For L1

3∗0.12
L1=0.65*(1.5-- )
0.65

L1 (m) 0.615

Since the values of L1 and B1 have already been calculated, the equation of the raw area
is solved

1
A’=2*0.375m*0.615m

A'(m2) 0.115

Since we know the valos of A 'we need to obtain the value of B' where L '= L , L’=0.65m

0.115 𝑚2
B’=( 0.65𝑚
)

B' (m) 0.177

Since the values of B1 and L1 are obtained, the graphic of the effective area which is
mosaicked below can be performed.

38
 Figure #22: Eccentricity for the A-C foundation Source: own

When obtaining the values of B', A'and L', we continue with the solution of what

Where Fcs, Fqs, and FΥs are with B'and L'

B' (m) 0.177

L' (m ) 0.65

Fcs 1.150
Fqs 1.144
FƔs 0.891
Table #20 :Factors : own

Having the new values of Fcs, Fqs, and FΥs with B'and L'are replaced in the following
equation

39
qu´=120*23.94*1.150*4.439*1+64*13.2*1.144*4.366*1+0.5*16*0.2*14.47*0.891*1*1

Resulting in
qu´KN/m^2 18905.3675

We proceed to determine the Qu

QU=A´*qu´

Qu=0.115𝑚2 ∗18905.3675 KN/𝑚2

Qu (KN) 2180.025184

Next you will see the profile view of the designed foundation

Figure #24: A-C foundation Source: own

16.Foundation # 3
or the Foundation A-A, an inclined load of 832.146 KN is proposed with an angle of
inclination of (25) or taking into account that the inclination parameters must be added that

40
had not previously been taken into account due to the fact that there was no inclined load
In this proposal the dimensions must be found by the equations of Meyerhof, Hansen,
DeBeer, Vesic, Terzaghi and other authors, based on the last load applied as the most
important factor.

Initial parameters

fs 3
Φ´ 27.614
C´ 120
Qall (KN) 832.146
β 25
Nc 23.94
Nq 13.2
NƔ 14.47

Df (m) 4
Ɣsuelo (Kn/m3 17.5
Ɣs (Kn/m3 19.83
Ɣd(Kn/m3 16
q(KN/m2) 51.3

( Table #21 : parameters Zapata A-A Source: own)

To determine the dimensions of a rectangular shoe with an inclined load, the general
bearing capacity equation shown below must be used (Meyerhof, 1963)

[1]

According to the author DeBeer It is necessary to determine the SHAPE FACTORS to

complete the general bearing capacity equation The following relationship must be
determined in order to obtain the case that must be executed, which depends on the depth
of the rebar and B, knowing that the load is less than that applied in the previous shoe, the
theory is that the dimensions must be smaller at 1 m said that it can be estimated that 4 on
any value less than 1 will give a ratio greater than one, so the following case is selected.

41
Since there is an inclined load, the tilting factors must be included

The solutions of these factors are in function of L and B since such values are not known.

𝐵 13.2
Fcs = 1+ 𝐿 * 23..94

𝐵
Fqs = 1+ 𝐿 *tan27.61

𝐵
FƔs = 1-0.4* 𝐿

1−Fqd
Fcd= Fqd - 23.94∗tan 27.63
4
Fqd= 1+(2*tan 27.62 )∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 *
𝐵

FƔd= 1

25 2
Fqi= (1 − 90
) = 0.52

25 2
Fci=(1 − ) = 0.52
90

25
Fɣi=(1 − 27.61)2= 9..18 X 10 - 3

42
When obtaining the factors of form and depth we proceed to replace these factors in the
general equation

𝐵 13.2 1−Fqd 𝐵
qu= 12 * 23.94 * (1+ 𝐿 * 23..94) * ( Fqd - 23.94∗tan 27.63) * 0.52 + 64 * 13.2 * (1+ 𝐿 *tan27.61) * (
4 1 𝐵
1+(2*tan 27.62) ∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 * 𝐵) * 0.52 + 2
* B * 14.47 * 1-0.4 * 𝐿
* 9.18 X 10 - 3* 1
[2]
𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙∗𝐹𝑠 832.146
Being 𝑞𝑢 = 𝐵2
=> q𝑢 = 𝐵∗𝐿
[3]

Equations 2 and 3 are equated

832.146 𝐵 13.2 1−Fqd 𝐵

= 12 * 23.94 * (1+ * ) * ( Fqd - ) * 0.52 + 64 * 13.2 * (1+
𝐵∗𝐿 𝐿 23..94 23.94∗tan 27.63 𝐿
4 1 𝐵
*tan27.61) * ( 1+(2*tan 27.62) ∗ (1 − sin 27.62)2 * ) * 0.52 + * B * 14.47 * 1-0.4 * *
𝐵 2 𝐿
9.18 X 10 - 3* 1 [4]

Equation 4 should equal (0) leaving everything in terms of B and L

𝐵 13.2 1−Fqd 𝐵
0 = ( (12 * 23.94 * (1+ * )) * ( Fqd - ) * 0.52 )+( 64 * 13.2 * (1+ *tan27.61)
𝐿 23..94 23.94∗tan 27.63 𝐿
2 4 1 𝐵
)* 0.52)+(2*tan 27.62) ∗ (1 − sin 27.62) * ) * (1 + * B * 14.47 * 1-0.4 * * 9.18 X 10 - 3
𝐵 2 𝐿
* 1) ) * (B*L) - 832.146

The above equation must be simplified to its maximum expression. followed by this, a
score should be made by means of excel with the command "goal sick" which will result in
the dimensions of the shoe shown below.

B(m) 0.35
L(m) 0.63 0.65
Ecu 0
( Table #: Dimensions Zapata A-A Source: own)

view on floor foundation A-A

43
 Figure #24: A-A foundation Source: own

Having as a result the base and the length the factors of form, depth and inclination are
calculated, remaining in the following way.

Fcs 1.987
Fcd 2.979
Fci 0.522
Fqs 1.945
Fqd 2.937

( Table #23 : parameters Zapata A-

Fqi 0.522 A Source: own)
FƔs 0.284
Finally, they calculate FƔd 1.000 again the values of qu and
qall with all the established Fɣi 0.009 parameters.

Qall Fs qu(KN/m2) qall(KN/m2)

832.146 3 11389.6052 3796.53505
( Table #24: parameters Zapata A-A Source: own)

Final view of the shoe with inclined load

44
 Figure #25: A-A foundation Source: own

concrete

Concrete
Foundation Dimensions (m) (𝑚3 )
E-C 1m*1m*0.20m 0.2
A-C 0.45m*0.65m*0.20m 0.0585
A-A 0.35m*0.65m*0.20m 0.0455

Total 0.304

Project costs

Item: 3
Foundation
Concrete pads
of 21 MPa (3000
psi). Does not
include
reinforcement.

I. Work tools

45
 Hours of
Descriptión Quantity use Rate / hour Value-Unit

Minor tool 2 12 $ 7,003.93 $ 7,003.93 168094.332

Gasoline engine mixer 2 16 $ 7,975.00 $ 5,263.50 255200

Vibrator with electric motor. 2 16 $ 7,975.00 $ 8,772.50 255200

Sub-total $ 678,494.33

II. Materials on site

Descriptión Unity Price-Unit Quantity Value-Unit

Antisol white (3) kg $ 4,756.00 3 $ 4,993.80 14981.4

$
Inputs for concrete 21 Mpa (non-working).(3) Foundation m3 336,100.00 0.304 $ 352,905.00 107283.12

Wood formwork. Complete 5 sides m2 $ 26,020.50 3 $ 52,041.00 156123

Sub-total $ 278,387.52

Ill. MANO DE OBRA

Total
Description wage Benefits Jornal Rendimiento Value-Unit
$
Oficial (1) 47,472 85% $ 80,423.00 0.63 $ 50,666.49 47471.89189
$ $
Assistant (9) 30,572 85% $ 47,308.00 0.63 $ 29,804.04 275,147.03
Asistente encofrador $
(1) 35,876 85% $ 55,308.00 0.63 $ 34,844.04 35875.89

Sub-total $ 358,494.81
lV
HEAVY MACHINERY
price per Hours of
Description hour use Value-Unit
$
Retroexcavadora hidráulica 32.799,21 12 32.799,21 393,591

Total direct Cost $ 1,708,967

$
+ I.V.A. 19.00%
324,704

$
Total Cost + I.V.A. 2,033,670.95

It is intended to generate a profit of 5% of the work developed

Earnings 5% $ 1,016,835.47

46
17.Conclusions

 According to the seismic map of Bogota, the study area is located in an alluvial zone
of intermediate seismic threat, so it can be said that in this zone the damages caused
by an earthquake will not be of great magnitude but the preventions necessary for
the construction in said place. By the standard NSR-10 can demonstrate that this
area is possible buildings of more than 25 floors with an area of more than 30 000
m2[Seismic map of Bogota ]

 It was determined the importance of the interpretation of the geological, geotechnical

and seismic maps of the place in which the building will be constructed since this
gives the engineer notions of the problems that a structure might have if the soil
study is not the appropriate

 As observed in the theory of Boussines that allows calculating the stresses created
by the overload arranged on terrain's surface. The number of probes will depend on
the subsoil since if its found that it is the same in the whole terrain it is not necessary
to continue, but if on the contrary, an anomaly is perceived, the number of probes
must be increased to have good results because there is no rule to determine the
number of probes, it is necessary that the first results are those that indicate the
decisions to be taken. [Boussines 1980]

 The depth of the soundings was selected according to own criteria taking into
account that different depths of the soil could be observed in order to distinguish their
correct formation and behavior without leaving aside that this allows the
conformation of a stratigraphic profile of the soil.

 Because of the land where the construction was carried out was formerly a two-floor
house that remained for more than 50 years, the soil was consolidated for this type
of load, when a new building with a greater load is built, the floor is expected to take
a considerable time to fully consolidate with respect to the new charges

 It is specified that the stratigraphic profile will be carried out with the deepest drilling
that corresponds to 22 meters because the maximum depth provides more
information about the layers and different soil lithology.

 It was evidenced that the building is constructed on soil near the mountain foot with
positive alluvial properties since they have a thickness greater than 12 m and gravel
with sandy clay. This indicates that the foundations of the construction may not
present problems since this type of soil is capable of withstanding great stress.

47
 At the end of the soil study and the calculations made, the soil classification
according to the friction angle is determined as a soft clay with the possible presence
of illite belonging to the group of micas which means it is a non-expansive clay
[Bardeth 1997]

 Conclusions part two

 It is determined that the proposed foundation corresponds to a surface foundation

section cross section of large dimensions with respect to height and the function is
to move the loads of a building to shorter depths, less than 4 million approximately
with respect to the level of the surface natural of a plot (Luis Garza 2008)

 With the design of the shoe it can be analyzed that in a superficial foundation the
ground reaction balances the force transmitted by the structure. This reaction of
forces, which does not have a certain distribution pattern, is carried out in the
relationship between the ground and the cross section of the foundation that is in
contact with it. In this case, the state of lateral efforts is not important. Consequently,
the structural behavior of a surface foundation has the characteristics of a beam or
a plate (Miguel Escobar 2006)


 In the project, 36 foundations were installed. The three most critical shoes were
chosen because they are the ones that receive the most load. These foundations
require a more detailed analysis since the stability of the building depends to a large
extent on them. For this reason, the shoes were selected (A-C), (E-C), (A-A)

 A safety factor of 3 is proposed because there are very high loads and the building
is large. the quality of the construction, the probability and severity of a failure
during the service life of the structure depend on and influence the value of Fs. A
second opinion that the safety factor was a bit high is that with values lower than
this they did not comply with the designs.

 It is determined that the EC shoe, which has the most load, is designed in a square
shape because it is easier to build since it is inside the land to be built, and it is
easy for the design of this type of foundation to save time in the calculation of its
dimensions, however, this type of shape gives a better load distribution towards the
ground, according to the NSR 10 Chapter C

 It is observed in the design of the three footings that the dimensions of the
foundations are directly related to the load placed, that when analyzing the
calculations it is obtained that at a lower load, smaller dimensions • When carrying
out the foundation calculations with a safety factor of less than three, the shoes did
not design with the high load established, this was necessary to implement tests

48
 with different safety factors, with 3 being the ideal factor for the design of the
foundations.

 The dimensions of the square shoes, eccentric rectangular and the shoe with
inclined load, were determined by the last load making a retraction on the
equations raised by the different authors, taking into account that each one is a
different case, in this way determined the dimensions and the different parameters
of each of the proposed shoes

 Individual shoes are established as they are proposed as a solution in simple

cases, since they are located in soils with low compressibility, hard soils, with
moderate structural loads, which is in accordance with the aforementioned soil
characteristics. Low compressibility and present a high hardness

 Because the dimensions found are small in relation to the load, it is feared that the
design belonging to an isolated foundation may tend to fail due to mechanisms
such as bending, adhesion, anchoring, punching shear and shear due to bending.
of being perfectly reinforced and secured to guarantee the useful life of the
construction (Zeevaert, 1980)

Bibliographic:

1. Geotechnics of the engineer. Henri Cambefort. Spain 1975.Editores técnico y

asociados

2. Study of soils and foundations in the construction industry. Fletcher. Gordon Mexico.
1978. Editorial Limusa

3. Bardet J.P. (experimental soils mechanic) page 180. table No 54 (Typical values of
friction angle of various soils). (1997)
4.
Budhu, M. SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS. third edition. page 53 Table
No 4.2. (2000)

5. Bowles Joseph . Manual of laboratory of soils in civil engineering,limits of soils .

edi1. vol 2. (EE.UU). Mc Graw Hill. Page 35. (1982)

49
6. Lambe William, Whitman . Soil Mechanics (classification of soils on results of
USCS). edi 1.vol 1. table 5. (Massachusetts, EEUU), Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. (1979)

50