Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80

18th International Conference on Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Buildings 2016,

CRRB 2016

Several comments on numerical modeling of shallow foundations

Meera Ramesha, Pavel Kuklikb* and Martin Válekb
a
Historical and Masonry Structures, UMinho, Guimaraes, Portugal
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, CTU in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract

Most of structures constructed before the twentieth century, were not a product of meticulous analysis, but were rather a
fortuitous amalgamation of good structural instincts and vernacular experience in building technology and construction. The aim
of the work is to study soil structure interaction for shallow foundations associated with ancient residential and sacral structures.
The main goal of the study is to establish the width and depth of subsoil zone which must be taken into account and incorporated
into numerical FEM modelling.

©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 18th International Conference on Rehabilitation and
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 18th International Conference on Rehabilitation and
Reconstructionofof
Reconstruction Buildings
Buildings 2016.
2016

Keywords: Soil structure interaction; Influence zone; Preconsolidation; Shallow foundations; FEM

1. Introduction

Most superstructures generally employ materials that can be modeled with relative ease. However, in the case of the
foundations, the natural condition of soils must be respected and taken into consideration, [11]. Since, the
deformability of virgin soil is relatively high; the geostatic stresses play a significant role in the behavior of subsoil
acting as a natural form of soil compaction, [8]. Subsequent unloading and reloading results in minimal deformation,
making the soil behave as an almost incompressible layer until the highest level stress is attained again. This defines

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +420 725 576 616; fax: +420 224 310 775.
E-mail address: kuklikpa@fsv.cvut.cz

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 18th International Conference on Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Buildings 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.526
74 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80

the depth of influence zone as the point in soil at which the effective vertical stress due to surcharge becomes equal
to the value of the specific weight of soil, [9]. Specific weight is thus, a kind of preconsolidation occurring naturally.
The extent, to which a structure or the surface load applied, can be considered to actively impact the subsoil below it
is termed as the influence zone. The concept could also be used as a tool to assess the volume of soil actively
supporting the foundation and superstructure, [8]. In certain cases, it could also be employed to evaluate its effect on
neighboring structures. One of the most common methods of assessing the depth of influence zone is to use the
Boussinesq or Westergaard equations and to evaluate the depth at which the stress in soil becomes one-tenth of the
stress applied on the surface, [2]. Depending on the experience and confidence of the analyst, this depth can be
increased or decreased by considering 15 or 20 percent of the stress applied on the surface, [1]. Half space theories
though, are found to be inconsistent with the concept of influence zone. The theory of elastic layer is more suitable
for estimation of the influence zone depth as it complies with the fundamentals employed, [4], [5], [6], [7], [12]. As
the example of such footing we can mention foundations of the Broumov Group of Churches, [3]. A visualization of
the solved problem is in the following figure.

Width = ? Width = ?

Depth = ?

Fig. 1. Visualization of the solving problem

2. Elastic layer theory and estimation of depth of influence zone

The aim of the analytical solution is to determine the deformation of an elastic layer in the vertical direction. The
solution procedure is built on neglecting horizontal displacements.

fz

x
y z, w
H

Elastic layer
E,Q

Rigid base

Fig. 2. Formulation of the elastic layer solution

The assumptions are similar to those adopted in the analysis carried out, based on Westergard subspace. Clearly,
such an assumption results in a stiffer response of soil thereby resulting in a lower value of depth of influence zone.
The formulation of the problem is evident in Fig. 2. Referring [7], [9] to the Kantorovich method distribution of the
displacement field can be expressed in the form:
 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80 75

f
w x; y; z  ¦ w x; y \ z  ,
j j
j 1, 3, 5

jS
\ j  z  cos z ,
2H (1)
Where \ j z , j 1,3,5,... represents a complete set of base functions. Adopting the standard procedure of
deformation method variant solution [8], the system of partial differential equations can be derived as follows:
2
 'w j  x, y    jD  w j  x, y  f z  x, y , j 1,3,5,... ,
2

GH
S E oed S 2  2Q
D .
2H G 2 H 1  2Q (2)

Symbols Q , Eo ed , G represent known values of Poisson’s ratio, oedometric modulus and shear modulus, H is the
thickness of the layer. In case of axisymmetric situations or if uniform load is acting on an infinite strip, the solution
can be obtained by solving the system of ordinary differential equations. Otherwise, the strategy of convolution
must be employed. Eq. (2) is the generalized form of the known Pasternak solution of subsoil. The concept used to
evaluate the depth of influence zone, has been depicted in Fig. 3.

Original grade
Original
I.Z. excavation
Depth

geostatic
of
h

stress
Final grade J.h state
Depth
H

of

J.h J.h Course of vertical stress

Geostatic stress state due to surcharge
influenced by excavation

Fig. 3. Concept of depth of influence zone

Depth of influence zone is determined as the point in soil at which the effective vertical stress due to surcharge
becomes equal to the value of Jh where h represents the depth of excavation carried out. (Figure 3) This is based
on the concept that the original stress state in the soil undergoes a change on being subjected to excavation, due to a
change in the highest stress level recorded in the loading history of the soil, often referred to, as the preconsolidation
pressure. Mathematically, the closed form of the expression used to estimate the depth of influence zone is based on
the deformation of an elastic layer. Additionally, horizontal displacements have been neglected, as is the case in
Westergaard assumptions leading to a response that is stiffer than in reality. The expression of the depth of influence
zone H presented below is the result of loading from a uniform load acting on an infinite strip of width 2a .

Sa 2  2Q 1 Sa 2  2Q 1 (3)
H
2 1  2Q § SJh · 2 1  2Q § SJh · § SJh ·
sinh 1¨¨ tan ¸¸ ln¨¨ sin  1¸¸  ln¨¨ cos ¸
© 2 fz ¹ © 2 fz ¹ © 2 f z ¸¹

It is to be noted that H depends on the width of the strip load 2a and is independent of the Young’s modulus of soil;
the Poisson’s ratio Q however plays a significant role. f z is the value of the surcharge in kN/m. A two conditions
of equivalence between the method of elastic layer theory and the simpler solution of Winkler Pasternak (Filonenko
Borodich) must be adopted to obtain the values of the two parameters C1WP and C2WP (all details in [7], [8]).
76 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80

3. Comparing the elastic layer theory with classical solutions based on half space

Foundation with dimensions 2 m * 1 m has been selected as an example. This case falls under the category of
with a ratio of 2. (Figure 4). The settlements were recorded for loads varying from 50kN/m to 1000kN/m,
with the depth of influence zone varying from 0.987 m to 27.374 m respectively ( Table ).

Fig. 4. Analytical solution for foundation with dimensions 2m*1m [10]

Table 1: Analytical solution for foundation with dimensions 2m*1m

fz (kN/m) H (m) C1WP (MN/m3) C2WP (MN/m) w (mm)

50 0.987 17.082 0.807 2.040177
60 1.344 12.866 0.993 2.997798
70 1.668 10.623 1.134 3.985287
80 1.977 9.181 1.25 5.013686
90 2.277 8.16 1.348 6.083896
100 2.571 7.392 1.435 7.191225
150 3.999 5.263 1.762 13.21184
200 5.396 4.248 2.001 19.84317
250 6.782 3.633 2.199 26.92239
300 8.163 3.213 2.374 34.33813
350 9.54 2.902 2.535 42.03397
400 10.915 2.66 2.686 49.96292
450 12.289 2.465 2.831 58.07697
500 13.663 2.303 2.971 66.36119
600 16.407 2.048 3.241 83.32528
700 19.15 1.853 3.502 100.7515
900 24.633 1.57 4.008 136.6329
1000 27.374 1.463 4.257 154.9381
From the Boussinesq solution; two values of depth of influence zone, corresponding to 15% and 20% of stress were
obtained and found to be, H15= 4.244 m and H20= 3.183 m respectively. These were plotted as ratios and
 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80 77

(where H was obtained from (Table 1)) with respect to the load applied.

Fig. 5. Variation of ratio of depth of influence zone obtained from elastic layer theory and Boussinesq theories with respect to change in load for
2m*1m

4. Effect of neglecting horizontal displacement

Foundation with dimensions 2 m * 1 m was selected to highlight this particular observation. (Figure 6) indicates the
results obtained for load case 1000kN/m: depth of influence zone 27.274m and settlement 207.3 mm. The numerical
results of the settlement obtained from the software (
Table 2) have been plotted along with the analytical settlements obtained from elastic layer theory (Table 1) in
(Figure 7). The error percentage calculated is the difference between the analytical and numerical results with
respect to the analytical solution ranging from 28.34% to -38.51%.

Fig. 6. Settlement (207.3 mm) for load case 1000kN/m

78 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80

Table 2: Numerical results for foundation 2m*1m

fz (kN/m) w(mm) numerical w(mm) analytical Error (%)

50 1.462 2.040177 28.33954909
60 2.2 2.997798 26.61280762
70 3 3.985287 24.7231066
80 3.8 5.013686 24.20746636
90 4.6 6.083896 24.39055084
100 5.5 7.191225 23.51789332
150 10.5 13.21184 20.52582541
200 16.2 19.84317 18.35980064
250 22.5 26.92239 16.42643066
300 29.4 34.33813 14.3808844
350 37.5 42.03397 10.78643367
400 45.9 49.96292 8.131875509
450 55.2 58.07697 4.953721024
500 65.2 66.36119 1.749796275
600 87.7 83.32528 -5.25016743
-
700 113.1 100.7515 12.25633862
-
900 173.4 136.6329 26.90943925
-
1000 207.3 154.9381 34.50529117

Fig. 7. Comparison of numerical and analytical settlements (2m*1m)

5. Effect of width of subsoil

The foundation with dimensions 3m*3m was selected to assess the effect of change in width of the subsoil (around
the foundation) on the settlement. Since in the analytical solution, the horizontal deformations are neglected, the
width of the subsoil around the foundation was increased to reduce the effect of horizontal constraints. The
 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80 79

dimensions were increased from 5m on either side to 9m, 15m and 30m on either side respectively (Fig. 8). The
standard numerical solutions (width 5m) were observed to be smaller than the analytical solutions for most load
cases. Comparing the numerical solutions (of different widths: 5m, 9m, 15m, 30m); in case of the lower value of
loads, the settlement seems to be the same for all the different widths (all lower than the analytical solutions). As the
loads increase however, the value of settlement seems to increase and for higher values, the settlement tends to
become equal to the analytical solution and even surpass it in some cases (Table 3).

Table 3: Effect of change in width of subsoil around the foundation (3m*3m)

(5m) (9m) (15m) (30m)
fz (kN/m) H (m) w(mm) analytical w(mm) num. w(mm) num. w(mm) num. w(mm) num.
180 1.515 4.459353133 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
190 1.929 5.684752836 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
200 2.262 6.741227444 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9
210 2.557 7.735188898 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.8
220 2.83 8.702815467 7.5 7.7 7.7 7.7
270 4.031 13.4884226 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.2
320 5.11 18.43644927 16.1 16.9 17 17
370 6.133 23.61746509 20.7 21.8 22.1 22.1
420 7.127 29.02014437 25.7 27 27.6 27.6
470 8.101 34.63151515 31 32.3 33.3 33.3
520 9.063 40.43113033 36.7 37.8 39.3 39.4
570 10.016 46.40893639 42.9 43.5 45.3 45.8
620 10.961 52.53543728 49.5 49.2 51.6 52.3
670 11.902 58.90607894 56.5 55.3 58 58.9
720 12.839 65.24660609 64 61.6 64.5 65.9
770 13.772 71.77432233 71.9 68.1 71.2 73

Fig. 8. Effect of change in width of subsoil on the settlement (3m*3m)

6. Conclusion

Classical solution of soil mechanics based on half-space theory, seem to be inconsistent with the concept of
influence zone which can be considered as an important tool in the understanding of interaction between a structure
and its sub-soil. On the contrary, using the elastic layer theory seems to provide a quantitative solution dependent on
80 Meera Ramesh et al. / Procedia Engineering 195 (2017) 73 – 80

several factors including the load applied, Poisson’s ratio, density and oedometric modulus of the soil. Neglecting
horizontal deformations for vertical loads leads to stiffer response in the soil; this must be taken into account in the
evaluation of analytical results. Furthermore, the width of the subsoil that is considered in the analysis also impacts
the final settlement, with the values increasing with increasing widths.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors highly appreciate the financial support of Ministry of Culture Czech Republic DG16P02R049
NAKI II. The authors are pleased to can realise international collaboration in the frame of the SAHC, advanced
masters’ program (Erasmus Mundus initiative).

8. References

[1] Bracken Engineering Limited, Establishing and Investigating Foundation Zones of Influence, 2012
[2] Cajka, R., Accuracy of Stress Analysis Using Numerical Integration of Elastic Half-Space, MECHATRONICS AND APPLIED
MECHANICS II, PTS 1 AND 2, vol. 300-301, pp. 1127 - 1135, 2013. ISBN 978-3-03785-651-2. ISSN 1660-9336.
[3] Facelli, G.; Kuklík, P., Insufficient Maintenance an Achilles Heel Of the Broumov Group of Churches, In: Proceedings of the Conference on
the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Buildings (CRRB 2014). 2015. ISBN 978-3-03835-506-9.
[4] Fajman, P., Structural Changes Effect on Deflect of Tower St. Jiri on Prague Castle
7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC CONSTRUCTIONS: STRENGTHENING AND
RETROFITTING, PTS 1 AND 2, vol. 133-134, pp. 379 - 384, 2010. ISBN 978-0-87849-239-8. ISSN 1022-6680.
[5] Kotrasova K. , Grajciar I., Dynamic analysis of liquid storage cylindrical tanks due to earthquake, Advanced Materials Research, vol. 969, pp.
119 - 124, 2014. ISSN 1022-6680.
[6] Kotrasova, K.; Grajciar, I.; Kormanikova, E., A Case Study on the Seismic Behavior of Tanks Considering Soil-Structure-Fluid Interaction,
JOURNAL OF VIBRATION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGIES, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 315 - 330, 2015. ISSN 2321-3558.
[7] Kuklík, P.; Kopáčková, M.; Brouček, M., Elastic Layer Theory and Geomechanics
Praha, CZ: CTU Publishing House. 2009. 109 pp. ISBN 978-80-01-04339-4.
[8] Kuklík, P., Preconsolidation, Structural Strength of soil, and its effect on subsoil upper structure interaction, In: Engineering Structures, vol.
33, no. 4, pp. 1195 - 1204, 2011. ISSN 0141-0296.
[9] Kuklík, P.; Brouček, M., Phenomenon of Influence Zone in Civil Engineering Practice
In: Procedia Engineering, vol. 2011, no. 14, pp. 1705 - 1712, 2011. ISSN 1877-7058.
[10] Kuklik, Pavel, http://www.stavarina.cz/depth/depth.htm, 2 July 2016
[11] Ma, S.; Yu, Z.; Shi, Yu; Gao, Z.; Luo, L.; Chu, P.; Guo, Z., Soil water use, grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in a long-
term study of tillage practices and supplemental irrigation on the North China Plain, AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, vol. 150, pp.
9 - 17, 2015. ISSN 0378-3774.
[12] Mistrikova, Z., Jendzelovsky, N., Static analysis of the cylindrical tank resting on various types of subsoil, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 744 - 751, 2012. ISSN 1392-3730

Nomenclature

Eoed oedometric modulus (MPa)

G shear modulus (MPa)
Q Poisson’s ratio
J Specific weight of soil (kN/m3)
b=2a width of foundation strip (m)
h depth of excavation (m)
H influence zone depth (m)
C1WP W.P. modulus by means of equality of the compliance matrix of infinite rigid strip footing being supported
on elastic layer and/or Winkler Pasternak model of subsoil (MN/m3)
C2WP W.P. shear modulus derived in the same manner as modulus above (MN/m)
fz loading (surcharge) in z direction (kN/m2)
w settlement (m)