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
footing can only be obtained if the supporting soil reactions are
Foundations for buildings, bridges, water tanks, and other struc- correctly determined. The initial structural design approach for a
tures receive loads from the superstructure through columns or spread footing is to select the length and width such that the
walls and transmit these loads to the soil below. An appropriate allowable soil bearing capacity is not exceeded. The thickness of
foundation should economically satisfy the functional require- the footing is then sized for one- and two-way action shear at a
ments of the structure and minimize differential movement of the specified distance away from the face of the column without
various parts of the structure that cause damage. It should be using shear reinforcement. The flexural steel is finally obtained by
designed to transmit no more than the maximum tolerable distor- determining the bending moment at the face of the column due to
tion to the superstructure. The amount of distortion that a struc- the soil pressure distribution under the footing. The preceding
ture can tolerate depends on its purpose. The three most common load effects are computed with the help of appropriate free-body
foundation types are: 1 spread and wall footings; 2 mat foun- diagrams and simplified procedures that are based on statics.
dations; and 3 pile and drilled shafts. Spread and wall footings Simplifying assumptions must be made for the design of a
are used under individual columns, walls, and bridge piers. They footing, because no analytical methods have been developed that
are applicable for any soil conditions where the bearing capacity can accurately evaluate all the factors involved in the problem of
for the applied loads is adequate. Mat foundations are generally soil-structure interaction and allow for the precise determination
used for very heavy column loads, where differential settlement of the contact pressures and corresponding subgrade response.
could be a problem. Piles and drilled shafts are utilized when poor The validity of such simplifying assumptions and the accuracy of
surface and near surface soils exist. the associated results must be evaluated on the basis of the soil
The response of a spread footing to the applied loads depends type below the footing and at greater depths, size and shape of the
on the characteristics of the footing, superstructure, connections, footing and column, eccentricity of loading, stiffness of the foot-
ing and superstructure, and modulus of subgrade reaction of the
1
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., American Univ. of soil.
Sharjah, P.O. Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Except for unusual conditions, structural and geotechnical de-
2
Project Engineer, ABB Transmission and Distribution, Al Ghaith sign codes and specifications allow a linear soil pressure distribu-
Tower, 15th Floor, P.O. Box 33473, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. tion to be assumed for footings which can be considered to be
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2005. Separate discussions rigid to the extent that only very small relative deformations re-
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
sult from the applied load. This assumption may result from the
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
stiffness of the footing itself or the rigidity of the superstructure
sible publication on November 6, 2003; approved on December 17, 2003. above it. Fig. 1 shows possible idealized soil pressure distribu-
This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and tions for a footing subjected to concentric and eccentric loading.
Construction, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/ Experience has shown that the assumption of a linear pressure
2005/2-109–114/$25.00. 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 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
Fig. 1. Idealized soil pressure distribution under rigid footing: k= 2 3
B 1− s
a constant; b trapezoidal; and c triangular
where s =Poisson’s ratio of the soil. Unless triaxial tests are
available on the soils in question, values of the modulus of elas-
vative load estimates and ample factors of safety in materials and ticity of the soils are difficult to estimate. Hence, Eqs. 2 and 3
soil. However, there are some cases in which a footing must be can be combined to express the relative stiffness factor Kr inde-
analyzed as a flexible structure, particularly if the foundation is pendent of Es:
long or wide and thin.
A more accurate method for computing the soil pressure under EIb
Kr = 2 4
a footing than the straight-line distribution procedure is one in k 1− s B4
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
Significance of Study
1988 . The finite-element method using plate or shell elements is
The expression proposed by Meyerhof 1953 and presented in
superior to other discrete elements methods, such as the finite-
Eq. 2 has some shortcomings. First, it does not account for the
grid and finite-difference methods.
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
Background
distributed over the column’s cross-sectional area. Further, Eq. 2
considers only one dimension of the footing and neglects the
Gere and Timoshenko 1991 classify beams of finite length on
other dimension, which is perpendicular to it.
elastic supports as short beams l 0.60 , beams of medium
Based on the preceding, there is a need to develop a new
length 0.60 l 5 , or long beams l 5 , where l = length of
measure of the spread footing flexibility with respect to the soil.
the beam and is a parameter given by
Such a measure can be used to check whether a spread footing
can be treated as rigid or flexible in the structural analysis and
4 k
= 1 design of the shallow foundation.
4EI
where k = modulus of subgrade reaction; E = modulus of elasticity
of the beam; and I = moment of inertia of the beam. Method of Analysis
In the first group of classification, short beams can be analyzed
as rigid structures, because the deflection due to bending is neg- All footings in this study were analyzed in the linearly elastic
ligibly small in comparison with the deflection of the foundation. range by a finite-element software SAFE 1998 . The finite-
The characteristics of beams in the second group is that a force element model consists of subdividing the footing into small rect-
acting on one end of the beam produces a considerable effect at angular or square elements. Each element has four nodes, and
the other end; thus, such beams must be treated as beams of finite each node has 3 degrees of freedom—two rotational and one
length. Finally, in beams of the third group it can be assumed in translational. The soil is represented in the finite-element model
investigating the beam that the other end is infinitely far away; by elastic springs. The computer program is capable of analyzing
hence, the beam can be considered as infinitely long. and designing footings and mat foundations of different geom-
110 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2005
/ 6
nt for Free
3 z 11 2010-10-31 16:09
Spread Footing Flexibility 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-
Fig. 2. Placement of soil support elements 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-
etries with and without embedded beams and walls. terpart.
The finite-element mesh of the analyzed footings is rectangu- The footing stiffness factor that is proposed in this study, Kr , is
lar in shape and is based upon a maximum acceptable element based on the expression of Eq. 4 , with modifications to account
size, with extra mesh lines being introduced at all locations of the for all dimensions of the footing and column cross section, as
column boundaries. Support properties of all area objects, in the follows:
form of weightless linearly-elastic springs, are discretized and
applied to the mesh points that exist within the area and on the Et3
Kr = 2 2 2
5
boundaries of the area, based upon the tributary area associated k 1− s B−b L−l
with the mesh point, as shown in Fig. 2. An iterative process is
where t= uniform thickness of the footing; b= column dimension
used to model no-tension surface support conditions, because the
along the footing dimension B; L= footing dimension perpendicu-
soil is assumed not to carry any tension.
lar to B; and l= column dimension along the footing dimension L.
Each footing element is assumed to be an isotropic, thick plate
These variables are shown in Fig. 4. All other variables have been
bending element. The thick plate element is a four-node element
defined earlier. The ability of Eq. 5 in predicting the effect of
and accounts, in addition to bending, for the effects of out-of-
relative flexibility of a spread footing on its structural response
plane shear deformations Ibrahimbegovic 1993 . Membrane
will be investigated in the next section.
stresses for such an element in the plane of the footing do not
The effects of the modulus of subgrade reaction, footing thick-
exist. Footing element moments and shears are calculated at the
ness, footing width, and column size on the flexibility of a spread
mesh nodal points of the element.
footing are all investigated. Square and rectangular footings are
All loading on the footing system is applied as point loads on
considered, with the column being placed at the center of the
the mesh points. In the case of surface loads, the program inter-
footing. The applied loading consisted of concentric and eccentric
nally generates the point loads based upon the tributary areas and
loading.
the loading intensities supplied by the user. For convenience in
Four groups of footings are considered in this study. The first
reporting the shear and moment results, the footing system is
group of footings, denoted by Series A, consists of square foot-
divided into strips by references to the finite-element mesh. The
ings subjected to concentric loads through the column. The sec-
strip definition is repeated in two mutually perpendicular direc-
ond group, Series B, includes rectangular footings subjected to
tions. The total integrated cross-sectional shears and moments
concentric loads. The third group, Series C, is used to study the
along the length of a strip are obtained for design purposes SAFE
effects of an axial load plus uniaxial bending on a square footing.
1998 . Fig. 3 shows the finite-element mesh and deflection pattern
Finally, the last group of footings, Series D, is utilized to inves-
of a typical square footing subjected to concentric loading.
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-
Approach responds to a modulus of elasticity of about 24.8 GPa 3,600 ksi .
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 Fig. 4. Notation used in study: a plan; and b elevation
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2005 / 111
/ 6
nt for Free
4 z 11 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
