Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.

com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

Scribd
Upload a Document
Search Books, Presentations, Business, Academics...

Explore

Documents

Books - Fiction
Books - Non-fiction
Health & Medicine
Brochures/Catalogs
Government Docs
How-To Guides/Manuals
Magazines/Newspapers
Recipes/Menus
School Work
+ all categories
Featured
Recent

People
Authors
Students
Researchers
Publishers
Government & Nonprofits
Businesses
Musicians
Artists & Designers
Teachers
+ all categories
Most Followed
Popular

Sign Up
|
Log In

/ 6

nt for Free

1 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

Effect of Spread Footing Flexibility on Structural Response

1 2
Sami W. Tabsh and Abdul Raouf Al-Shawa

Abstract: Spread footings are normally used under individual columns of buildings and bridge piers. They are economical to use and are
applicable for any soil conditions where the bearing capacity for the applied loads is adequate. Structural design codes and specifications
allow a linear soil pressure distribution to be assumed for the design of spread footings. This approach is valid for infinitely rigid footings.
Past experience has shown that the assumption of a linear pressure distribution is satisfactory for most footings; however, there are some
cases in which a shallow foundation must be analyzed as a flexible structure, particularly if the footing is excessively long/wide and thin.
In this study, a relative stiffness factor, Kr , is developed that can determine whether a footing can be considered rigid for the purposes of
structural analysis and design. This factor is a modified version of an expression first proposed by Meyerhof in 1953, but takes into
account the size of the column supported on the footing. The study is based on modeling square and rectangular spread footings subjected
to concentric and eccentric loadings by finite elements. The footings are modeled using thick rectangular plate elements and the soil with
elastic springs. The results of the study showed that a footing with Kr factor greater than 1.0 indicates that it can be analyzed as a rigid
footing with reasonable accuracy. This includes determination of soil pressures, vertical footing displacements, shear forces, and bending
moments. The study also showed that maximum shear forces within a spread footing are less sensitive to changes in the stiffness of a
footing than bending moments.
DOI: 10.1061/ ASCE 1084-0680 2005 10:2 109

CE Database subject headings: Finite elements; Flexibility; Spread foundations; Shallow foundations; Soil pressure; Structural
behavior.

Introduction soil, and loads. Moments, shear forces, and deformations in a

Foundations for buildings, bridges, water tanks, and other struc-
tures receive loads from the superstructure through columns or
walls and transmit these loads to the soil below. An appropriate
foundation should economically satisfy the functional require-
ments of the structure and minimize differential movement of the
various parts of the structure that cause damage. It should be
designed to transmit no more than the maximum tolerable distor-
tion to the superstructure. The amount of distortion that a struc-
ture can tolerate depends on its purpose. The three most common
foundation types are: 1 spread and wall footings; 2 mat foun-
dations; and 3 pile and drilled shafts. Spread and wall footings
are used under individual columns, walls, and bridge piers. They
are applicable for any soil conditions where the bearing capacity
for the applied loads is adequate. Mat foundations are generally
used for very heavy column loads, where differential settlement
could be a problem. Piles and drilled shafts are utilized when poor
surface and near surface soils exist.
The response of a spread footing to the applied loads depends
on the characteristics of the footing, superstructure, connections,
1
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., American Univ. of
Sharjah, P.O. Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
2
Project Engineer, ABB Transmission and Distribution, Al Ghaith
Tower, 15th Floor, P.O. Box 33473, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on November 6, 2003; approved on December 17, 2003.
This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/
2005/2-109–114/$25.00.
footing can only be obtained if the supporting soil reactions are
correctly determined. The initial structural design approach for a
spread footing is to select the length and width such that the
allowable soil bearing capacity is not exceeded. The thickness of
the footing is then sized for one- and two-way action shear at a
specified distance away from the face of the column without
using shear reinforcement. The flexural steel is finally obtained by
determining the bending moment at the face of the column due to
the soil pressure distribution under the footing. The preceding
load effects are computed with the help of appropriate free-body
diagrams and simplified procedures that are based on statics.
Simplifying assumptions must be made for the design of a
footing, because no analytical methods have been developed that
can accurately evaluate all the factors involved in the problem of
soil-structure interaction and allow for the precise determination
of the contact pressures and corresponding subgrade response.
The validity of such simplifying assumptions and the accuracy of
the associated results must be evaluated on the basis of the soil
type below the footing and at greater depths, size and shape of the
footing and column, eccentricity of loading, stiffness of the foot-
ing and superstructure, and modulus of subgrade reaction of the
soil.
Except for unusual conditions, structural and geotechnical de-
sign codes and specifications allow a linear soil pressure distribu-
tion to be assumed for footings which can be considered to be
rigid to the extent that only very small relative deformations re-
sult from the applied load. This assumption may result from the
stiffness of the footing itself or the rigidity of the superstructure
above it. Fig. 1 shows possible idealized soil pressure distribu-
tions for a footing subjected to concentric and eccentric loading.
Experience has shown that the assumption of a linear pressure
distribution is satisfactory for most cases because of the conser-

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 109

/ 6

nt for Free

2 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility
Fig. 1. Idealized soil pressure distribution under rigid footing:
a constant; b trapezoidal; and c triangular
vative load estimates and ample factors of safety in materials and
soil. However, there are some cases in which a footing must be
analyzed as a flexible structure, particularly if the foundation is
long or wide and thin.
A more accurate method for computing the soil pressure under
a footing than the straight-line distribution procedure is one in
which the soil pressure distribution is governed by the modulus of
subgrade reaction. This method is particularly advantageous for
semiflexible and flexible footings. In this method, the footing is
subdivided into discrete elements on elastic supports Bowles
1988 . The finite-element method using plate or shell elements is
superior to other discrete elements methods, such as the finite-
grid and finite-difference methods.
Background
Gere and Timoshenko 1991 classify beams of finite length on
elastic supports as short beams l 0.60 , beams of medium
length 0.60 l 5 , or long beams l 5 , where l = length of
the beam and is a parameter given by
4 k
= 1
4EI
where k = modulus of subgrade reaction; E = modulus of elasticity
of the beam; and I = moment of inertia of the beam.
In the first group of classification, short beams can be analyzed
as rigid structures, because the deflection due to bending is neg-
ligibly small in comparison with the deflection of the foundation.
The characteristics of beams in the second group is that a force
acting on one end of the beam produces a considerable effect at
the other end; thus, such beams must be treated as beams of finite
length. Finally, in beams of the third group it can be assumed in
investigating the beam that the other end is infinitely far away;
hence, the beam can be considered as infinitely long.
110 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2005
/ 6
nt for Free
3 z 11
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility
For the case of footings or mat foundations supporting rigid
structures, the American Concrete Institute ACI Committee 336
1988 suggests the use of a relative stiffness factor, Kr, devel-
oped by Meyerhof 1953 , to determine whether the footing
should be considered as flexible or to act as a rigid body:
EIb
Kr = 2
EsB3
where E =modulus of elasticity of the structure; Es =modulus of
elasticity of the soil; B =width of the foundation; and Ib
= moment of inertia of the structure per unit length at right angles
to B.
ACI Committee 336 1988 recommends that, if Kr of a foun-
dation is equal to 0.5 or larger, then the footing can be considered
rigid and the variation of soil pressure can be determined on the
basis of simple statics. However, if the relative stiffness factor is
found to be less than 0.5, then footing should be designed as a
flexible member on elastic supports representing the effects of the
soil.
For most practical purposes, the relationship between the
modulus of elasticity and the subgrade reaction of the soil is given
Vesic 1961a,b by
Es
k= 2 3
B 1− s
where s =Poisson’s ratio of the soil. Unless triaxial tests are
available on the soils in question, values of the modulus of elas-
ticity of the soils are difficult to estimate. Hence, Eqs. 2 and 3
can be combined to express the relative stiffness factor Kr inde-
pendent of Es:
EIb
Kr = 2 4
k 1− s B4
Significance of Study
The expression proposed by Meyerhof 1953 and presented in
Eq. 2 has some shortcomings. First, it does not account for the
size and stiffness of the column from which the footing is receiv-
ing its load. Second, the load is assumed to be applied on the
footing as a point load. In reality, the applied load is usually
distributed over the column’s cross-sectional area. Further, Eq. 2
considers only one dimension of the footing and neglects the
other dimension, which is perpendicular to it.
Based on the preceding, there is a need to develop a new
measure of the spread footing flexibility with respect to the soil.
Such a measure can be used to check whether a spread footing
can be treated as rigid or flexible in the structural analysis and
design of the shallow foundation.
Method of Analysis
All footings in this study were analyzed in the linearly elastic
range by a finite-element software SAFE 1998 . The finite-
element model consists of subdividing the footing into small rect-
angular or square elements. Each element has four nodes, and
each node has 3 degrees of freedom—two rotational and one
translational. The soil is represented in the finite-element model
by elastic springs. The computer program is capable of analyzing
and designing footings and mat foundations of different geom-
2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility
Fig. 2. Placement of soil support elements
etries with and without embedded beams and walls.
The finite-element mesh of the analyzed footings is rectangu-
lar in shape and is based upon a maximum acceptable element
size, with extra mesh lines being introduced at all locations of the
column boundaries. Support properties of all area objects, in the
form of weightless linearly-elastic springs, are discretized and
applied to the mesh points that exist within the area and on the
boundaries of the area, based upon the tributary area associated
with the mesh point, as shown in Fig. 2. An iterative process is
used to model no-tension surface support conditions, because the
soil is assumed not to carry any tension.
Each footing element is assumed to be an isotropic, thick plate
bending element. The thick plate element is a four-node element
and accounts, in addition to bending, for the effects of out-of-
plane shear deformations Ibrahimbegovic 1993 . Membrane
stresses for such an element in the plane of the footing do not
exist. Footing element moments and shears are calculated at the
mesh nodal points of the element.
All loading on the footing system is applied as point loads on
the mesh points. In the case of surface loads, the program inter-
nally generates the point loads based upon the tributary areas and
the loading intensities supplied by the user. For convenience in
reporting the shear and moment results, the footing system is
divided into strips by references to the finite-element mesh. The
strip definition is repeated in two mutually perpendicular direc-
tions. The total integrated cross-sectional shears and moments
along the length of a strip are obtained for design purposes SAFE
1998 . Fig. 3 shows the finite-element mesh and deflection pattern
of a typical square footing subjected to concentric loading.
Approach
The finite-element computer program discussed earlier is used to
analyze several footings with different geometries, soil properties,
and loadings. The loading is applied on the top of the footing as a
surface load through the column cross section. The weight of the
Fig. 3. Finite-element model and deflected shape of spread footing
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2005 /
/ 6
nt for Free
4 z 11
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility
footing is neglected in the analysis because of its negligible effect
on shear and moment in the footing. In each case, the footing is
analyzed twice: one time with the actual thickness, and another
time with an infinitely large thickness, taken equal to 30.5 m
100 ft . The results are presented in the form of graphs showing
ratios of soil pressure, deflection, shear, and moment in footings
versus a footing stiffness factor. The soil pressure ratio is defined
as the ratio of the maximum soil pressure under a flexible footing
to the corresponding soil pressure under a rigid footing with the
same characteristics. Similarly, the footing displacement, mo-
ment, and shear ratios are defined as the respective ratios of the
maximum footing displacement, moment, and shear within a flex-
ible footing to the corresponding functions under its rigid coun-
terpart.
The footing stiffness factor that is proposed in this study, Kr , is
based on the expression of Eq. 4 , with modifications to account
for all dimensions of the footing and column cross section, as
follows:
Et3
Kr = 2 2 2
5
k 1− s B−b L−l
where t= uniform thickness of the footing; b= column dimension
along the footing dimension B; L= footing dimension perpendicu-
lar to B; and l= column dimension along the footing dimension L.
These variables are shown in Fig. 4. All other variables have been
defined earlier. The ability of Eq. 5 in predicting the effect of
relative flexibility of a spread footing on its structural response
will be investigated in the next section.
The effects of the modulus of subgrade reaction, footing thick-
ness, footing width, and column size on the flexibility of a spread
footing are all investigated. Square and rectangular footings are
considered, with the column being placed at the center of the
footing. The applied loading consisted of concentric and eccentric
loading.
Four groups of footings are considered in this study. The first
group of footings, denoted by Series A, consists of square foot-
ings subjected to concentric loads through the column. The sec-
ond group, Series B, includes rectangular footings subjected to
concentric loads. The third group, Series C, is used to study the
effects of an axial load plus uniaxial bending on a square footing.
Finally, the last group of footings, Series D, is utilized to inves-
tigate the effects of an axial load plus biaxial bending on a square
footing. In all cases, the nominal concrete compressive strength in
the footing was kept constant at 28 MPa 4,000 psi , which cor-
responds to a modulus of elasticity of about 24.8 GPa 3,600 ksi .
Fig. 4. Notation used in study: a plan; and b elevation
111
2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

/ 6

nt for Free

5 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

/ 6

nt for Free

6 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

Download this Document for FreePrintMobileCollectionsReport Document

This is a private document.

Info and Rating

foundations
allowable soil
soil pressure
applicable
springs
square
minimum thickness
footing concentric
(more tags)
Ah_Ming liou Follow
Like Be the first of your friends to like this.

Sign Up for an Ad-Free Scribd

Remove all ads.

Never see ads on Scribd again.

No Thanks
/ 6
Share & Embed

nt for Free

7 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

Related Documents

PreviousNext

1.
8 p.

20 p.

11 p.

2.
8 p.

35 p.

35 p.

3.
31 p.

/ 6 3
p.
nt for Free

8 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

6 p.

4.
52 p.

1
p.

16
p.

5. 1
p.

6 p.

13 p.

6. 42
p.

42
p.

/ 6

nt for Free

9 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

42 p.

7. 10
p.

More from this user

PreviousNext

1.
343 p.

6 p.

7 p.

2.
9 p.

7 p.

10 p.

/ 6

3.
nt for Free

10 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility http://www.scribd.com/doc/19570257/Spread-Footing-Flexibility

10 p.

Recent Readcasters

Add a Comment

Submit
Upload a Document

Follow Us!
scribd.com/scribd
twitter.com/scribd
facebook.com/scribd

About
Press
Blog
Partners
Scribd 101
Web Stuff
Scribd Store
Support
FAQ
Developers / API
Jobs
Terms
Copyright
Privacy
/ 6

nt for Free

11 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09