When to use a raft foundation – Rule of thumb based on area of isolated footings In foundation selection for buildings, a raft (mat) foundation is typically preferred when the total area that would be covered by individual isolated footings exceeds what percentage of the building footprint?

Introduction / Context:
Raft (mat) foundations distribute loads over a large area, reducing bearing pressures and differential settlement. A practical selection rule compares the cumulative area of isolated footings with the building footprint to decide if a continuous mat is more economical and better performing.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conventional spread footings versus raft on comparable soil conditions.
• Building footprint is known.
• Settlement control and cost efficiency are objectives.

Concept / Approach:

When many columns require large isolated footings, their combined area can approach a significant portion of the site. If this area exceeds roughly half the footprint, a raft is often favored because it provides uniform support, ties the structure, and may reduce excavation/formwork complexity. The 50% threshold is a common heuristic; final decisions should include settlement analysis and cost comparison.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Comparative cost and settlement analyses typically show rafts advantageous beyond the 50% mark, especially on soft, heterogeneous soils.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

25–40% are too low and may still favor isolated footings; 60% is more conservative than necessary in many cases.

Common Pitfalls:

Using the rule without checking groundwater, basement needs, or punching shear; ignoring the benefits of rigid diaphragms in controlling differential settlement.

Final Answer:

50% of the total area