Geotechnical Design I

Analysis of shallow footing

Dr. Y.M. Cheng

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.cee.polyu.edu.hk/~ceymcheng/
 Types of footing

(a) Pad Footing (b) Strip Footing (c) Raft Footing

Plans showing Pad Footings, Strip Footings and Raft Footings

Tie-beam may be used to connect individual footing for lateral stability

The choice between several individual footings and one raft footing
connecting many structural members depends on the engineer. The use of
a single raft footing has the advantage is that there will be load sharing
between the superstructure, however, it may be slightly more expensive.
(Note : similar consideration required for pile foundation)
 Three methods of analysis of simple footing
Moment is commonly given in terms of eccentricity in rigid analysis (but not
in flexible analysis) and M=Pe

P
e

q1
q2
Plas tic stress i s often
resulted actually

(a) By Linear Pressure (b) By Independent (c) By Continuum Theory or

Distribution Assumption Winkler Spring Concept the Finite Element Method

Ground Pressure Distribution beneath Footing under three common Assumptions

Case (a) - rigid analysis method where plane section remain plane (hand calculation)
Case (b) - each point deflect and will not affect the surrounding (most popular, easy)
Case (c) – each point affect the surrounding, controlled by theory of elasticity (very few
programs can work for this case)

Cases b and c are called flexible design method, as stiffness of foundation is considered
Rigid Analysis (Plane section remains plane, but why ?)
Case I (e  L/6) Footing with a vertical load P and moment M in one direction.

Assume rigid footing using plane section remains plane, the base bearing
pressure can be taken as linear and can be obtained from simple solid
mechanics of eccentric axial load on a section as

P Pe  X =P/AMy/I (1)
P
q  e
LB BL3 Is it really true ? True only
when B is small and shear M
12 deformation neglected

At the two edges, the pressures are

P 6 Pe (2)
q1
q1, 2   in kN/m2 q2
BL BL2
To make q similar to the UDL in classical 1D structural mechanics, some
engineers like to use qB (still denoted as q in notes)
P 6 Pe
q1,2   in kN/m, not kN/m2
L L2
 Rigid Analysis
Case II (e > L/6)

From (2), q = 0 at e = L/6 (3)

If e > L/6, q < 0 which means tension and is not possible for soil, therefore,
eq. (2) cannot be used for L > e/6
P
e
Vertical force equilibrium M

0.5qL’=P kN/m
(4)

Taking moment at base

q
L’
1 L' L
qL '  P(  e)
2 3 2
L' L
Since 0.5qL’=P, hence  e For e > L/6
3 2
L’ is found, then q can be determined from (4)
 Evaluation of moment and shear
After analysis of base pressure, the footing is inverted and structural analysis is carried out.

Determine bending moment and shear force

as in year 1 structural mechanics

Case III Multiple applied loads

If there are more than 1 point loads on applied moment, the applied loads can be
transformed to an equivalent point load P with an eccentricity e. Case I & II from
above can be used to find the base bearing pressure. The bending moment and shear
force can be determined from the base bearing pressure.

Note: Even for multiple column loads, the analysis is still statically determinate
because the column loads are known and need not be determined.
This is not a continuous beam problem because all support
reactions are known, hence M and F can be determined at any
location without moment distribution or stiffness analysis.
Note : column loads are known and applied trapezoidal load come
from column loads, different from classical structural mechanics
 Example 1 on 1D classical rigid analysis
Take moment about A 100  0.5  200  1.5  300 X
100 200
X  1.167m Location of centroid from left

 e  X  2  0.167 m,
2
towards right from centreline A B C D

300 300  0.167  6

q  (actually qB, neglect the width) 0.5 1.0 0.5
2 22
 150  75 kN/m 75
225
112.5 143.63
187.5

Slope=(225-75)/2=75

SF at B=(75+112.5)x0.5/2=46.88kN (left) ; SF at B=46.88-100=53.13kN (right)

SF at C=(187.5+225)x0.5/2=103.13kN (right) ; SF at C=103.13-200=96.88kN (left)
 Example 1
100 200

A B C D

0.5 1.0 0.5

75
225
112.5 143.63
75 75
187.5
Slope of this line is 75x

Base pressure = 75 at left and 225 at right. Change = (225-75) over 2m

length, hence rate of change is (225-75)/2=75. Pt. of zero shear is located
at distance x from left, hence divide the trapezoidal pressure to a UDL +
triangular load as :
1 X=0.915m
 75  X 2  75 X  100
2
(Point. load at left)
(Base area of triangular part+ rectangular part at point of zero shear =100, Note :
75 is the slope of the straight line)
 Example 1
100 200

Take moment at end, total load=L, level arm=L/2


A B C D Hence moment = L2/2
L

Take moment at right end, total load=L/2, level


0.5 1.0 0.5 arm=L/3, hence moment = L2/6.
Take moment to left end, moment= L2/3
75
225
112.5 143.63
75 75
187.5
75x

Lever arm = 1/3 to base of triangle

To determine bending moment at B, divide the base pressure to a UDL + triangular load
BM at B=75x0.52/2+37.5x0.5/2x0.5/3=10.94 kN-m (note : 37.5=112.5-75 or x=0.5)
BM at C=187.5x0.5x0.5/2+37.5x0.5/2x0.5x2/3=26.56 kN-m
Max. hogging moment=75*0.9152/2+(143.63-75)x0.915/2x0.915/3-100x(0.915-0.5) = -
0.53 kN-m
 Example 2 Long retaining wall
Backfill soil :  = 33, Ka = 0.295,  = 19
Foundation soil : c = 5,  = 36,  = 19.5

Consider 1m strip of wall and take moment about toe

Force x lever arm Moment
(1) 6.6x0.4x24=63.6x0.6 = 38.02
(2) 4x0.4x24 =38.4x2 = 76.8
(3) 6.6x3.2x19=401.28x2.4= 963.07
Sum vertical 503.41 1077.89 RM
(4) 0.5x0.295x19x72=137.2x7/3=320.42
horizontal OTM
Check bearing capacity
Resultant moment=1077.89-320.42=757.47 about A
e  757.47 / 503.04  4 / 2  0.494m  4 / 6m No tension, eccentricity towards left
Lever arm about A
503.04 503.04  0.494  6
q   125.76  93.19 or 218.95 / 32.57
4 42
= 36, Nc = 50.55, N = 56.2, Nq = 37.7 (Vesic) B'  4  2  0.494  3.012
Ca is take as 2/3C and m can be taken as 2 as the width of retaining wall is usually
long.
 Example 2
From GEO Guide

Since H=137.2L, P=503.41L, hence the factor become

137.2
 qi  (1  )m
P  B f c 'cot 
i

m tends to 2 if L is very long. If L is not very long, shape factors need to be considered.

Shear key against sliding failure is commonly used,

as most failure of retaining wall is sliding failure.
Shear key may also be put at the front or rear ends.
 Example 2
Some engineers apply a factor of 2/3 for base slab without shear key, but this is not important
2
 
 
 137.32  1  iq
iq  1  =0.539 i  0.396 ic  0.539   0.526
 2  37.7  1
 503.04   5  3.012  cot 36 
 3 
1
qu  5  50.55  0.526   19.5  3.012  56.2  0.396 = 786.5
2
FOS against bearing = 786.53.59/218.95=3.59 O.K

Bending and shear up to edge of wall stem will be ok

 Example 2

Overall

Stem moment = 1/6x0.295x19x6.63=268.6

stem moment=0.295x19x6.63/6=268.6
Design of water table recommended by CEDD

1/3 height designed for

water

Upthrust at base simplified to a

triangular pressure
Winkler’s 1D spring for soil reaction (flexible analysis)
When strain is small, q vs.  can be taken as linear
P Area A
and Ks = q/ (unit=kN/m3 ) (1)

Typical values of Ks can be found from GEO Guide 1.
q= slope = Ks (1)  A: A∙ Ks = q∙A/  = F/ 
(P /A)
or  = F/ AKs
Hence A· Ks is conceptually similar to classical 1-D
spring, and A· Ks is taken as the spring constant


L

Effective area is taken as the area
bounded by centrelines for each node
5 6

Node 1 2 3 4

The effects of soil on foundation are lumped at nodes. Cut a centreline between nodes
and the effective area between centerlines is used to compute K = Aeff ∙ Ks. Ks can be
approximated as 0.65E/B(1-2) by Salvadurai or E/B(1-2) by Vesic, or E/2B(1-
2)loge(L/B)
 Stiffness matrix for 1D beam element for foundation

 12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI 
 L3 
L2 L3 L2 
 6 EI 4 EI 6 EI 2 EI 
  2 
K    12L EI
2
L L L 
 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI
 2  2 
 L3 L L3 L 
 6 EI 2 EI 6 EI 4 EI 
  2 
 L2 L L L 
1D beam element stiffness matrix
DOF 1,2,3,4 are the vertical displacement and rotations at left and right ends

Note that DOF at right hand side of each member is the DOF of the member adjacent to
it. Hence we can assemble a global stiffness matrix, put in the boundary condition and
solve the matrix equation. Advantage :
If the number of elements keep on increasing, the matrix solution will tend to the
differential equation solution. The limitations of the classical differential equation are
totally eliminated.
 Assembly of matrix for beam and soil stiffness

From beam 1

Superposition of stiffness for beam 1 From beam 2

and 2 for same degree of freedom

Put in nodal spring stiffness due to soil at locations (1,1), (3,3), (5,5) …of the global
stiffness matrix. At odd number because even number is associated with rotation
Alternative method to consider Winkler soil stiffness

 156 22 L 54  13L 
 22 L 4 L2
13L  3L2 
ks L 
K soil   
420  54 13L 156  22 L
 
  13 L  3 L 2
 22 L 4 L2 

Superimpose the stiffness matrix arising from the Winkler support is a more refined
and accurate method which does not need to use the concept of centre-line division.
That is [K]=[Ksoil] + [Kbeam] for each beam segment, but no need to add nodal spring
from soil.
Classical differential equation solution for beam on elastic ground
When flexural rigidity of the footing is considered in analysis of footing, the beam on
an elastic foundation is a commonly used method. This method is based on the classical
Winkler’s spring concept in which the foundation is considered as a bed of springs
(“Winkler foundation”). The basic beam deflection equation with Winkler’s spring is (-
ve sign is put in ksy as the soil reaction is opposite to direction of deflection

d4y
EI 4  q   k s' y
dx

where ks'  ks B In solving the equations, a variable  is introduced. General solution is :

y  e x (c1 cos x  c 2 sin x )  e  x (c3 cos x  c 4 sin x ) k s' k s' L4

4 or L  4
4 EI 4 EI

Very long classical solutions has been derived for the case of point load and point moment in the past.
The classical solution has several distinct disadvantages over the computational approach which are :

1. Assumes weightless beam (but weight will be a factor when footing tends to separate from the soil)
2. Difficult to remove soil effect when footing tends to separate from soil
3. Difficult to account for boundary condition of known rotation or deflection at selected points
4. Difficult to apply multiple types of loads to a footing
5. Difficult to change footing properties of I and B along member
6. Difficult to allow for change in subgrade reaction along footing
Beam or slab simply supported at two ends? (Importance of
2D analysis)

Case a - 1-D beam, no need to care about width, M=l2/8

L

Case b - UDL, B is large. Fully loaded

and supported at 2 ends, M=l2/8 ?
What happen when B > L ?
Case c - UDL, loaded half of the width and
supported at 2 ends, M=l2/8 or = case b ?
Highway bridge with traffic jam or accident
 Analysis of 2D raft foundation
Classical Strip Method based on rigid analysis (simplified to 1D hand calculation method)
Strips are taken out in X/ Y directions and 1-D analysis for classical footing is applied. The
displacements and internal forces are not compatible between different strips.

Use this strip and carry out

classical 1D design in X direction

Use this strip and carry out classical 1D design in Y direction

3 strips in X and 3 strips in Y directions are formed, then carried out totally 6 1-D analysis. If
columns are spaced irregularly, it is difficult to define the column strips for analysis. Bending
moment, shear force and displacement are not compatible across strip.
Alternatively, just neglect the width or length and carry out 1D analysis along X and along Y
 Grillage method (flexible analysis, computer method)
Raft is modelled as 2-D grid beams connected at nodes. A grid beam is a special
space frame member which lies on a 2D plane. The approximate representation of a
slab by a grillage of interconnected beams is a convenient way of determining the
general behaviour of a slab. A grillage is a structure longitudinal and transverse
beams connected together with a bending and torsional stiffness. The Poisson ratio
effect is never considered in this model, but effect of torsion is included. The bending
and torsional stiffness (I and J) are given by

bt 3 1 t t4 
I , J  bt   0.21 1 
3
 
12 3 b  12b 4 

L
  0.75  1.1
b Plate Wire mesh
model
 Stiffness matrix for grid member

Moment along
member at this
end = Torque about this
member at this end

Moment of a member is related to torque of the orthogonal member, hence a global

stiffness can be assembled, solve this matrix equilibrium equation and obtain the member
forces. Note that moment to a member is the torque to the other orthogonal member.
Bending and torsional stiffness for Grillage Method

Not true 2D analysis, as

Poisson ratio is missing
Empty space, no matter how
many grids are added

bt 3 1 t t4 
I , J  bt 3   0.21 1   
12 3 b  12b 4 

Can a wire mesh converge to a steel plate ?

No, because each wire is not connected
with other wires except at node! Also,
node 7 is not connected with node 13
directly, say
 Plate element analysis (most rigorous method)
Since most plate in foundation analysis is rather thick, plane section cannot be assumed
to remain plane due to shear stress distortion, hence Mindlin thick plate assumption is
commonly used now. This approach is required by BD now and it requires the use of a
computer program. True 2D analysis, with 

Each plate element is a 2-D element while grillage is actually 1-D element but becomes
approximately 2-D analysis if inter-connected. Governing equation for plate element
bending is D 4  p  K s (without shear deformation), where  is the vertical
displacement, and D=Et3/12(1-2), t is thickness of plate and  is the Poisson ratio, p is
the applied load. Except for simple shape and loading, this biharmonic equation is
difficult to be solved even with Fourier Series analysis.

True 2D area
 Plate element analysis

For problems with simple geometry, loading and boundary condition, the
deflection can be obtained by means of Fourier or Levy series
 Plate on elastic foundation

In general, this problem can be solved only for thin plate under very simple loadings
and rectangular geometry. For general raft foundation/pile cap, the use of computer
program based on finite element method is indispensible. SAFE by CSI and PLATE by
Cheng are more suitable. For very simple case, the use of Navier’s or Levy’s solution
can be used.
 Raft foundation Computer Modelling
Computer Modelling of Raft Foundation:

1. Form mesh for grids or plate

2. For grillage analysis, determine the effective width of each member

from the distance between centre lines of grids.

3. Put in Winkler’s spring. For grillage analysis, determine the 1D spring

constant K (kN/m) from the effective area at each node and K = Ks · Aeff.
The effective area for nodes 1,2,6 are shown below.

8
4

7 For node 6
For node 2 3

6
2

For node 1 5
1

For plate member, no need to define nodal spring constant. Define

Ks and the program will determine it internally.
Distribution of Line moment (for plate and grid methods)
Foundation loads may be in form of distributed loads, line loads and point loads.
There is actually no point load in the real world. If the size of column is small
enough, the loadings can be taken as point loads and can be defined in a computer
model easily. For shear wall and core wall, the size of the wall is large and the line
loads must be carefully considered. For vertical load and out-plane moment, this is
easily achieved by discretizing the wall into series of nodes. The loadings are then
simply proportioned according to the effective width. For in-plane moment along
AB, this is however not possible.

A B

Using basic mechanics, Moment is equal to bending stress by =Mx/Ix. Defining stress
is equal to defining a moment ! Moment along Line AB is hence transformed to stress
along AB, with the centre being the neutral axis. Generate the equivalent point loads
to represent the moment. In the limit of infinite point loads, this will be ok.

Notice : Moment is usually defined to be the moment along an axis, not about an axis.
 Raft foundation Computer Modelling

4. Put in the boundary conditions (if any). For raft foundation, the boundary condition is
commonly the Winkler’s spring or elastic half space.
5. Put in loading from super-structure.
6. For columns: put in V, Mx, My

For shear wall, core wall: determine equivalent

y
point load from the stresses 1

Determine the stress distribution on the core 2

wall based on combined axial and bending on 3

x
the section
P M x
  x Moment along axis
A I xx

Distribution of nodal forces

from stress :

1/2 1/2 1/3 2/3

 Distribution of line moment (for plate and grid method)
Two shear walls are shown at right. Each 4m long shear wall carries
an axial load of 5000 kN and moment -1000 kN-m about the centre
and along the wall. Determined the equivalent point loads for
computer analysis using 5 points.

Axial stress=5000/4=1250 kN/m

Max. bending stress=1000x2/(43/12)=375 kN/m
Therefore, max/min stress=1625/875 kN/m

For span 1-2, the distributed load is 1625 at left and 1437.5 at right.
This distributed load will be transformed to 2 point loads at nodes 1
and 2.

Equivalent load at node 1 = 1437.5x0.5+0.5x187.5x2/3=781.25 kN

1625
UDL part 1437.5
of 1437.5
1062.5
1250
875

Node 1 2 3 4 5

1m spacing
 Distribution of line moment (for plate and grid method)

Equivalent load at node 2 = 1437.5x0.5 + 0.5x187.5x1/3 + 1250x0.5

+ .5x187.5x2/3 =1437.5 kN=1473.5x1 (this apply when spacing of
nodes are uniform)

Equivalent load at node 3 = 1250 kN=1250x1

Equivalent load at node 4 = 1062.5 kN

Equivalent load at node 5 = 468.75 kN

Add up these 5 point loads =5000 kN, ok

Take Moment at centre (not other point)=1000 kN-m
1625
1437.5
1062.5
1250
875

Note : the triangular area is splitted to 1/3 and 2/3 in order

To maintain the overall moment. 1m spacing
 Grillage and plate analysis

Grid b I J
Point load = 781.25 at e2
1 0.25 0.0107 0.0427

2 0.25+0.5 0.032 0.128

= 1437.5 at e3
3 0.5+0.5 0.0427 0.171 = 1250 at e4
4 0.5+0.5 0.0427 0.171
= 1062.5 at e5
a,f 0.25 0.0107 0.0427
b,e 0.25+0.5 0.032 0.128 = 468.75 at e6
c,d 0.5+0.5 0.0427 0.171 L2/6

For grid analysis, there are 7x5+6x6= 71 elements and 42 nodes, each stiffness matrix
is a 6x6 matrix

For plate analysis, there are 42 nodes and 5x6=30 elements, each stiffness matrix is a
12x12 matrix

Note : In a computer model, there is actually no line/area load, line/area moment.

Inside the computer model, these loadings are represented by point loads. So a
computer model need to have a fine mesh to give a good accuracy in the analysis
An example for a pair of shear walls problem by PLATE

Each shear wall is represented by 5 point loads

in the computer model

Written by Dr. Cheng on behalf of Housing and BD approved with

reference number S0848, more accurate than commercial program
 Using 2D analysis for 1-D problem

UDL=10 kN/m, span length=6m, Mmax=l2/8=45 kN-m

Using plate analysis, UDL = 10/0.2=50 kPa
With 24 elements, Mx at centre=224.23 kN-m/m, global moment = 224.23x0.2 =44.85 kN-m
With 48 elements, Mx at centre=225, global moment=225x0.2=45 kN-m = 1D results
For normal raft foundation, engineers usually use several thousand elements in the analysis
 Sample output from grillage analysis
JOINT AND MEMBER DATA ( 9 JOINTS 12 MEMBERS 4 SPRINGS)
NODE X-ORDINATE Y-ORDINATE CONSTRINTS
1 2.000 5.000 1 1 1
2 3.500 3.500 1 1 1
3 5.000 2.000 1 1 1
4 5.000 9.000 1 1 1
5 7.000 7.000 1 1 1
6 9.000 5.000 1 1 1
7 8.000 13.000 1 1 1
8 10.500 10.500 1 1 1
9 13.000 8.000 1 1 1
MEMBER CONNECTIVITY INERTIA TORSION CONST LENGTH
1 1 TO 2 0.10000E+06 0.40000E+02 0.21213E+01
2 2 TO 3 0.10000E+06 0.40000E+02 0.21213E+01
3 4 TO 5 0.10000E+06 0.40000E+02 0.28284E+01
4 5 TO 6 0.10000E+06 0.40000E+02 0.28284E+01
5 7 TO 8 0.10000E+06 0.40000E+02 0.35355E+01
6 8 TO 9 0.10000E+06 0.40000E+02 0.35355E+01
7 1 TO 4 0.20000E+06 0.80000E+02 0.50000E+01
8 3 TO 6 0.20000E+06 0.80000E+02 0.50000E+01
9 4 TO 7 0.20000E+06 0.80000E+02 0.50000E+01
10 6 TO 9 0.20000E+06 0.80000E+02 0.50000E+01
11 2 TO 5 0.40000E+05 0.80000E+02 0.49497E+01
12 5 TO 8 0.40000E+05 0.80000E+02 0.49497E+01
NODAL SPRINGS VALUES
NODE SPRING
1 0.10000E+13
3 0.10000E+13
7 0.10000E+13
9 0.10000E+13
JOINT VERTICAL FORCE MOMENT ABT. X-X MOMENT ABT. Y-Y
4 60.0000 0.0000 0.0000
8 40.0000 0.0000 0.0000
MEMBER LOAD-SET U.D.LOADING
1 1 10.00000
12 1 15.00000
 Sample grillage output
JOINT LOAD-SET Z-MOVEMENT X-ROTATION Y-ROTATION
1 1 0.55197E-10 0.16721E-02 -0.19101E-02
2 1 0.19595E-03 0.86526E-03 -0.83716E-03
3 1 0.14578E-10 0.54032E-03 -0.35821E-03
4 1 0.82798E-02 0.19561E-03 0.26050E-03
5 1 0.66302E-02 0.18363E-02 -0.27525E-03
6 1 0.20357E-02 0.15230E-02 0.11422E-02
7 1 0.77839E-10 -0.32165E-02 -0.14851E-03 Not zero, why ?
8 1 0.56091E-02 -0.14162E-02 0.14163E-02
9 1 0.47846E-10 0.14867E-02 0.18786E-02

MEMBER LOAD-SET MOMENTS FOR TWO ENDS FROM JOINTS TORQUE

1 1 0.17327E-01 0.10256E+02 1 AND 2 0.25063E-01
2 1 -0.10239E+02 0.28789E-01 2 AND 3 0.10718E-01
3 1 -0.55255E-01 0.55191E+02 4 AND 5 -0.21764E-01
Moment at this end
4 1 -0.55227E+02 -0.18099E-01 5 AND 6 0.17307E-01 balance torque at
5 1 0.38063E-01 0.13464E+03 7 AND 8 -0.18837E-02
6 1 -0.13462E+03 -0.94949E-02 8 AND 9 -0.19525E-01 this end
7 1 0.27254E-01 0.19871E+03 1 AND 4 -0.13609E-01
8 1 -0.14693E-01 0.48840E+02 3 AND 6 -0.26982E-01
9 1 -0.19874E+03 0.35642E-02 4 AND 7 0.37991E-01
10 1 -0.48855E+02 0.20621E-01 6 AND 9 -0.66045E-02
11 1 -0.14360E-01 -0.46901E+01 2 AND 5 -0.17519E-01
12 1 0.47292E+01 -0.17666E-01 5 AND 8 0.17840E-01

MEMBER LOAD-SET SHEAR FORCE

1 1
FOR JOINTS
0.57635E+01 -0.15450E+02 1 AND 2
Note : constant torque within the
2 1 0.48131E+01 0.48131E+01 2 AND 3 member, impossible
3 1 -0.19494E+02 -0.19494E+02 4 AND 5
4 1 0.19532E+02 0.19532E+02 5 AND 6
5 1 -0.38092E+02 -0.38092E+02 7 AND 8
6 1 0.38079E+02 0.38079E+02 8 AND 9
7 1 -0.39747E+02 -0.39747E+02 1 AND 4
8 1 -0.97651E+01 -0.97651E+01 3 AND 6
9 1 0.39747E+02 0.39747E+02 4 AND 7
10 1 0.97668E+01 0.97668E+01 6 AND 9
11 1 0.95043E+00 0.95043E+00 2 AND 5
12 1 0.36171E+02 -0.38075E+02 5 AND 8
Sample output from PLATE
Sample output from PLATE

3 degree of
freedom at
each node
Sample output from PLATE
5 internal stress at
each point

Each element has 4

nodes, and each node
get its own internal
forces
 Limitations of Winkler’s model

This result can be obtained

by Elastic half space option

Uniform settlement under UDL, incorrect ! Uniform

Winkler spring constant is not correct. Some
engineers double the edge spring constant, and give
better results, but this approach is not universal. Each
point will deflect and affect the neighboring points,
not true.

Use of Filonenko-Borodich model or other similar models are

seldom adopted due to difficulties in establishing the parameters.
Use of elasticity theory is preferred.
 Elastic half space/support analysis
Use of elasticity theory (elastic half space) based on E and . Each node will affect the
other nodes, hence the effects will be two-dimensional instead of one-dimensional.
This can be viewed by the following flexibility relation among different nodes
ij=fijPij
The displacement at node i is controlled by the loading at any node j. That means, even
if there is no loading at node i, displacement can still be induced from the load at load j
which is different but is more realistic than the Winkler’s model. The difficulty to this
problem is the lack of suitable commercial program, use PLATE.

To solve a problem, the equivalent flexibility and stiffness matrix has to be obtained
[kij] = [fij]-1
This stiffness matrix is added to the stiffness matrix of the raft foundation to give the
overall stiffness matrix. The global stiffness matrix will be a full matrix then. Using
this approach, the foundation will be lying on a soil medium extending to a great
distance, and the input parameters will be E and  instead of Ks. Actually, Ks is not a
constant, but E and  are material constants.
Elastic half space by PLATE (not available in commercial program)

Each point has an

effective zone of 10m

Under option support in program PLATE. Radius of influence means the influence
distance of fij. Set to a large number if you want to comply exactly with classical
elasticity theory. If a finite number is set, fij will be taken as zero if the distance between
points i and j exceeds the radius of influence.
 Pile raft analysis by PLATE (only 1 case in HK)
TITLE:
PLATE 1.0 User: Date:
4.5 Vert. disp Contour Max= 0.2898E-02 Min= -.1485E-02

3.5
Pile raft analysis against simple
3
elastic foundation analysis, note the 2.5
settlement 2

1.5

A raft foundation is supported by 6 piles. .5

Ks is taken as 10000 kN/m3. 5 point loads 0

are applied to the raft. -.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TITLE:
TITLE: PLATE 1.0 User: Date:
4.5 Vert. disp Contour Max= 0.5669E-02 Min= 0.3211E-03
PLATE 1.0 User: Date:
4.5 Pile arrangement
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5
1
1
.5
.5
0
0
-.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
QUESTIONS