Similar rules are also available in BS 800431 as follows:

– BS 8004 Table 2 for design of spread footings on chalk and also CIRIA
C574 Engineering in chalk73.
– BS 8004 Figure 1 and Table 4 for design of spread footings on rocks
(excluding chalk and Mercia Mudstone).
– BS 8004 Table 3 for design of spread footings on Mercia Mudstone.
The ‘presumed bearing values’ quoted in BS 800431 are compared to
unfactored dead plus live loads (giving the representative load). If design
resistances are to be assessed for comparison with a ULS design action (Fd,
which includes partial factors on actions using Design Approach 1
Combination 2 factors as per Section 2.11.3.4 above) then adjustments can
be made to the values quoted in BS 8004 to accommodate the difference in
design methodologies.
Before presenting prescriptive design rules, it is noted that there are
limitations to their usage. Examples of where prescriptive design should not
be used are summarised below in Table 6.3. The list is not exhaustive and the
designer must check that the design being undertaken is appropriate.
6.6.2 Clay soils – GC1 design
Prescriptive design of pads and strips bearing on clay strata is well
documented for strata with uniform or increasing strength with depth and
where the strength of the formation level is of medium strength or better
(medium strength has a measured undrained shear strength in the range of
40 to 75kN/m2). Where conditions are more complex then prescriptive design
may not be applicable and the designer should consider design by calculation
(see Section 6.8). Table 6.3 provides a list of situations where prescriptive
design would likely be inappropriate.
For GC1 structures and for initial assessment of foundation size based on
average undrained shear strength and unfactored loads the presumed
bearing resistance qa can be obtained from Figure 6.1 which is based on
BS 800431 suggested values. This figure also accommodates the EC7
requirement that if the footing has a bulked factor of safety of three or more
then no settlement analysis will be required for conventional structures. The
choice of undrained shear strength should be in keeping with BS 8004 and
can be taken to be a moderately conservative value. In Figure 6.1 the
‘presumed bearing resistance’ can be compared with the unfactored load
(vertical action).
Figure 6.1 has been revised in Figure 6.2 to be in keeping with EC7
terminology whilst maintaining a bulked factor of safety of three thereby
limiting the need for calculation of settlement. In Figure 6.2 the design
resistance, Rd is the design load with case A2 (Table 2.7a) partial factors
applied to the actions and the undrained shear strength, cu;k is the
characteristic undrained shear strength of the clay.