1.

Shallow foundations

A typical shallow foundation is shown in Figure 1.3(a). If Df /B<1, the foundations

are called shallow foundations, where Df = depth of foundation below ground level, and B =
width of foundation (least dimension). Common types of shallow foundations are continuous
wall footing, spread footing, combined footing, strap footing, grillage foundation, raft or mat
foundation and so on.
To perform satisfactory, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics:
1. They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that supports them.
2. They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (the term excessive is
relative, because the degree of settlement allowed for a structure depends on several
considerations).

1.2

Mat (Raft) Foundations

Raft foundation is a combined footing that may cover the entire area under a
structure supporting several columns and walls. Mat foundations are sometimes preferred for
soils that have low load-bearing capacities but that will have to support high column and/or
wall loads. Under some conditions, spread footings would have to cover more than half the
building area, and mat foundations might be more economical. Several types of mat
foundations are currently used. Some of common types are shown schematically in figure 1.1
and include the following:
a. Flat plate, the mat is of a uniform thickness.
b. Flat plate thickened under columns.
c. Beams and slab, the beams run both ways, and the columns are located at the
intersection of the beams.
d. Flat plates with pedestals.
e. Slab with basement walls as a part of the mat, the walls act as stiffeners for the mat.
Mats may be supported by piles. The piles help in reducing the settlement of a structure built
over highly compressible soil. Where the water table is high, mats are often placed over piles
to control buoyancy.

Section

Section

Section

Plan

Plan
(a)

Section

Plan
(b)

(c)

Section

Plan

Plan

(d)

(e)
Figure 1.1 Common types of mat foundations

Literature Review

Analysis of footings onWinkler foundation model using analytical and

numerical methods has been carried out by several pioneers in this
area. Some important contributions are highlighted in this section .
Analytical Solutions
The earliest classical works on the subject were due to Winkler (1867), Hertz (1884),
Zimmermann (1888), Reissner (1937), Hetenyi (1946), Gorbunov-Posadov (1949), Seely
and Smith (1952), Timoshenko and Krieger (1959), Vlasov and Leontov (1966), and several
others. Vlasov and Leontev (1966) also gave solutions to a large number of problems of
beams, plates and shells on elastic foundations, idealizing the soil medium as a two parameter
model which ignores the horizontal displacements in the medium. Kameswara Rao (1969,
1971) presented general solutions to beams and plates on elastic foundations using a discrete
continuum model for soil, which incorporates horizontal displacements also as a modification
to Vlasovsmodel. They presented the solutions using the versatile method of initial
parameters. Butterfield and Banerjee (Sridhar, 1999) gave solutions for settlement and
contact pressure for rigid rectangular rafts. Brown (Sridhar, 1999) obtained solutions for
contact pressure and bending moment in rigid, square and rectangular rafts subjected to
various combinations of concentrated loads. Fletcher and Herman (Sridhar, 1999) analyzed a
beam resting on flexible elastic foundation and determined the applicability of the Winkler
model and more mathematically refined models which included terms involving the
derivative of the deflection without resulting in any mathematical difficulty. A procedure for
finding the foundation coefficients when the elastic constants are known was developed.
Chan and Cheung (Sridhar, 1999) gave values of contact pressure for rectangular and
circular rigid footings due to concentric load and eccentric loading. These solutions enable an
estimate to be made of the bending moment in a rigid footing. Dasgupta (Sridhar, 1999)
considered an axially constrained beam resting on Winkler foundation and obtained solutions
for beam using finite element method as well as the differential equation method. The two
solutions are compared and are in close agreement to each other.
Some of the exact solutions available for beams and plates on elastic foundations are
presented in the subsequent section (Section 5.3). The method of solution for general loads
and moments acting on the footing, is discussed in detail using the method of initial
parameters (MIP), which is very versatile (Vlasov and Leontev, 1966; Kameswara Rao, 1969,
1971).

Numerical Methods and Finite Difference Method

Several solutions have been presented using numerical methods such as the finite
difference method (FDM), the RungeKutta method and iterative methods to take care of the
problems not solvable by exact methods. Of these the most popular is FDM. Malter (1958)
gave solutions of beams on elastic foundations using FDM. Teng (1964) worked out several
examples using FDM. Rijhsinghani (1961) presented detailed solutions for plates on elastic
foundations (PEF) using FDM. There are a very large number of books and publications on

FDM and its applications in soilstructure interaction analysis (Teng, 1964). Glyn Jones
(1997) presented a detailed analysis of beams on Winklers elastic foundations using finite
difference theory.He also gave a number of references on the subject.He developed
a software package for beams on elastic foundations (BEF)

Infinite Beams on Elastic Foundations

Consider an infinite beam on an elastic foundation subjected to a concentrated load P
at the origin (x=0, without any loss of generality) as shown in Figure 5.1. Thus p(x)=0 over
the whole length of the infinite beam except at the origin where there is a concentrated load P.
This concentrated load can be considered as a shear boundary condition rather than as an
external load (as is the usual practice in applied mechanics/structural mechanics/beam
theory). Also the solution can be taken in the form of Equation (5.8) to take advantage of the
infinite geometry of the beam-foundation system. This essentially means that we can neglect
the nonfeasible functions in the solution, that is, terms containing ex (= eL) have to be
neglected as deflections exponentially increase with the distance x from the load, which is
unrealistic along the positive x axis. Similarly e-x (= e-L) terms have to be neglected for the
negative x axis. Hence the total solution (since wp=0 for p(x)=p ()=0) can be written
fromEquation (5.8) as
1. For 0 x (along positive x axis)
w = e-x (C3 Cosx + C4 Sinx)
2. For 1x 0 (along negative x-axis)
w = ex (C1 Cosx + C2 Sinx)

Arbitrary constants C1, C2, C3, C4 have to be solved from the continuity conditions of w, w'
dw
(= dx

), M(=-EI

d2w
dx 2

) at x=0.

Winkler model with modification of "k" by Biot:

Biot (1937) solved the problem of an infinite beam with a concentrated load resting
on a three-dimensional subgrade by evaluating the maximum bending moment in the beam.
He found diat he could obtain a good coirelation witii die Winkler model for the maximum
moment case by setting:

Where

Es = modidus of elasticity of the soil,

Vs = Poisson's ratio of the soil,
B = beam width,
E = modulus of elasticity of the beam, and
I = moment of inertia of the beam

Winkler model with modification of "k" by Vesic (1961):

His work showed that k depends upon both die stiffness of the soil, as well as the
stiffness of the structure, so that similar size stmctures of different stiffness will yield
different values of k for the same applied load. Vesic's work extended Biot's solution by
providing the disuibution of deflection, moment shear, and pressure along the beam. When
Vesic divided the pressure along the beam by deflection at the same point along die beam, he
found the ratio between die two to be neariy constant He found die continuum solution
correlated with die Winkler model by setting.

k=

0.65 E s E s
12

Where

Es = modidus of elasticity of the soil,

Vs = Poisson's ratio of the soil,
B = beam width,
E = modulus of elasticity of the beam, and
I = moment of inertia of the beam
Even using these values of k found for die two special cases described, an exact

correlation with the Winkler model was not obtained for die corresponding values of all die
variables for the continuum model Using the continuum solution as a reference, Vesic
described this lack of correlation as an "error" in die Winkler model which he found to be
a function of the ratio of the characteristic length to the widdi of the beam. In addition to
diese factors, the value of k is also dependent upon the load distribution, the depth of die
soil continuum and any layering effects present in die continuum. Qearly, there is no
unique value for k, and in many instances it may not be determinable, even considering
field testing.

Winkler Model Improved by Filonenko-Borodich (1940) :

He improved the winkler model by connecting die top ends of die springs widi an
elastic membrane stretched to a constant tension. In this model die modulus of subgrade
reaction is given by

Where,

V is the Laplace operator, and all other terms were previously defined;
however, no method is provided for the computation of k or T.

Winkler Model Improved by Hetenyi (1946 and 1950):

He created an interaction among the springs in the foundation by imbedding an

additional plate with flexural rigidity, D , in the Winkler foundation in a manner shown in
Figure. According to this model, the modulus of subgrade reaction is given by:

where all terms have been previously defined; however, no method is provided for
determining die values of k and D*.

Winkler Model Improved by Pasternak (1954):

He improved upon the Winkler model by connecting the ends of the

springs to a plate, or "shear layer," consisting of incompressible, vertical elements, which can
deform only by lateral shear.
According to this model die
modulus of subgrade reaction is
given by:

Even though "G" represents the shear modulus of the elastic foundation, no unique
method is provided for the determination of k.

Winkler Model Improved by Vlasov's and Leont'ev's model (1966):

He included the shear strains within the soil continuum and resulted in the domain
equation,

where t = the soil shear parameter.

This equation, which considers shear interactions within the foundation and stmcture,
was developed using variational principles, ii addition, Vlasov and Leont'ev introduced
another parameter, which they identified as to characterize the vertical deformation profile
within the soil continuum. The real sttength of Vlasov's and Leont'ev's approach is in the
total elimination of the necessity to determine empirically the values of the modulus of
subgrade reaction, k, or even the shear parameter, t, as their values can be computed once
the value of is determined. This model has the disadvantage of requiring an estimate of
the parameter since no mechanism was developed for computing the value of .

YYang (1972) analysis of rectangular plate on Vlasov's and Leont'ev's

model:
He considered the analysis of rectangular plates on elastic foundations using
Vlasov's and Leont'ev's two-parameter model to represent the soil-stmcture interaction.
For his analysis, he used an iterative approach, which combines the finite-element method
for die plate widi die finite-diffaence technique for die boundary conditions. Like Vlasov
and Leont'ev, Yang did not provide a mediod for die computation of die important vertical
defwrnation profile parameter, - He used die same estimated values of and assumed a
semi-infinite continuum where die depdi of die soil is infinite, as Vlasov and Leont'ev did.

and then computed the values of the other parameters, numerically. None of these
researchers have solved the problem of analyzing plates on an elastic foundation with
finite soil layers.