ENCE 461

Foundation Analysis and

Design
Mat Foundations (Part II)
Nonrigid Methods
Nonrigid methods consider the deformation of
the mat and their influence of bearing pressure
distribution.
These methods produce more accurate values of
mat deformations and stresses
These methods are more difficult to implement
than rigid methods because of soil-structure
interaction
Nonrigid Methods
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
Winkler Methods
Coupled Method
Pseudo-Coupled Method
Multiple-Parameter Method
Finite Element Method
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Nonrigid methods must take into account that
both the soil and the foundation have deformation
characteristics.
These deformation characteristics can be either linear
or non-linear (especially in the case of the soils)
The deformation characteristics of the soil are
quantified in the coefficient of subgrade reaction,
or subgrade modulus, which is similar to the
modulus of elasticity for unidirectional
deformation
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Definition of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
k
s
= coefficient of subgrade reaction, units of
force/length
3
(not the same as unit weight!)
q = bearing pressure
= settlement
k
s
=
q
6
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Plate load test for coefficient of subgrade
reaction
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Application of coefficient of subgrade reaction to
larger mats
Coefficient of
Subgrade
Reaction
Portions of the mat that experience more
settlement produce more compression in the
springs
Sum of these springs must equal the applied
structural loads plus the weight of the mat
_P+W
f
-u
D
=
|
qdA=
|
6k
s
dA
Winkler Methods
The earliest use of these "springs" to represent
the interaction between soil and foundation was
done by Winkler in 1867; the model is thus
referred to as the Winkler method
The one-dimensional representation of this is a
"beam on elastic foundation," thus sometimes it
is called the "beam on elastic foundation" method
Mat foundations represent a two-dimensional
application of the Winkler method
Beams on Elastic Foundations
Beams on Elastic Foundations
Beams on Elastic Foundations
Application to Spread Footings
Note non-linear behaviour
Non-Linear Characteristics of
Soil Deformation
Limitations of Winkler Method
Load-settlement curves are not really linear; we
must make a linear approximation to use the
Winkler model
Winkler model assumes that a uniformly loaded
mat underlain by a perfectly uniform soil will
uniformly settle into the soil.
Actual data show that such a mat-soil interaction will
deflect in the centre more than the edges
This is one reason why we use other methods (such as
Schmertmann's) to determine settlement
Limitations of Winkler Method
Limitations of Winkler Method
Soil springs do not act independently. Bearing
pressure on one part of the mat influences both
the "spring" under it and those surrounding it
(due to lateral earth pressure)
No single value of k
s
truly represents the
interaction between the soil and the mat
The independent spring problem is in reality the
largest problem with the Winkler model
Coupled Method
Ideally the coupled method, which uses
additional springs as shown below, is more
accurate than the Winkler method
The problem with the coupled method comes in
selecting the values of k
s
for the coupling springs
Pseudo-Coupled Method
An attempt to overcome both the lack of coupling
in the Winkler method and the difficulties of the
coupling springs
Does so by using springs that act independently
(like Winkler springs), but have different k
s

values depending upon their location on the mat
Most commercial mat design software uses the
Winkler method; thus, pseudo-coupled methods
can be used with these packages for more
conservative and accurate results
Pseudo-Coupled Method
Implementation
Divide the mat into two or more concentric zones
The innermost zone should be about half as wide and half as
long as the mat
Assign a k
s
value to each zone
These should progressively increase from the centre
The outermost zone k
s
should be about twice as large as the
innermost zone
Evaluate the shears, moments and deformations using
the Winkler method
Adjust mat thickness and reinforcement to satisfy
strength and serviceability requirements
Pseudo-Coupled Method
Multiple-Parameter Method
This method replaces the independently-acting
linear springs of the Winkler method with springs
and other mechanical elements
The additional elements define the coupling effects
Method bypasses the guesswork involved in
distributing the k
s
values in the pseudo-coupled
method; should be more accurate
Method has not been implemented into software
packages and thus is not routinely used on design
projects
Finite Element Method
Models the entire soil-mat system in a three-
dimensional way
In theory, should be the most accurate method
Method is not yet practical because
Requires large amount of computing power to perform
Difficult to determine soil properties in such a way as
to justify the precision of the analysis, especially when
soil parameters are highly variable
Will become more in use as these problems are
addressed
Finite Element Method
Finite element method is used for structural
analysis
Mat is modelled in a similar way to other plate
structures with springs connected at the nodes of
the elements
Mat is loaded with column loads, applied line
loads, applied area loads, and mat weight
Usually superstructure stiffness is not considered
(conservative)
Can be done but is rarely performed in practice
Finite Element Method
Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction
Not a straightforward process due to:
Width of the loaded area; wide mat will settle more
than a narrow one because more soil is mobilised by a
wide mat
Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction
Not a
straightforward
process due to:
Shape of the
loaded area:
stresses beneath
long, narrow
loaded area is
different from
those below
square loaded
areas
Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction
Not a
straightforward
process due to:
Depth of the
loaded area
below the
ground surface
Change in stress
in the soil due to
q is a smaller
percentage of the
initial stress at
greater depths
Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction
Not a straightforward process due to:
The position of the mat
To model the soil accurately, k
s
needs to be larger near the
edges of the mat and smaller near the centre
Time
With compressible (and especially cohesive compressible
soils) mat settlement is a process which may take several
years
May be necessary to consider both short and long term cases
Non-linear nature of soil deformation makes unique
value of k
s
non-existent
Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction
Methods used to determine coefficient
Plate load tests
Test results must be adjusted between the shape of the
loading plate and the actual shape of the foundation
Adjustment must also be made for the size of the plate vs.
the size of the foundation, and the influence of size on the
depth of soil stress
Attempts to make accurate adjustments have not been very
successful to date
Derived relationships between k
s
and E
s
Relationships developed are too limited in their application
possibilities
Determining the Coefficient of
Subgrade Reaction
Methods used to determine coefficient
Use settlement techniques such as Terzaghi's
consolidation theory, Schmertmann's method, etc., and
express the results in a k
s
value
If using a pseudo-coupled value, use values of k
s
in the centre
of the mat which are half those along the perimeter
This methodology has the potential of eliminating the
problems described earlier while at the same time yielding
values of k
s
which then can be used in a structural analysis of
the mat with some degree of confidence
Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Given
Structure to be supported on a 30 m wide by 50 m
long mat foundation
Average bearing pressure is 120 kPa
Average settlement determined = 30 mm using
settlement analysis method
Find
Design values of k
s
used in a pseudo-coupled analysis
Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Solution
Compute average k
s
for entire mat
k
s
=
q
6
k
s
=
120 kPa
0.030 m
=4000kN / m
2
Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Solution
Divide mat into three zones as shown
L
W
(k
s
)
C
= 2 (k
s
)
A
(k
s
)
B
= 1.5 (k
s
)
A
(k
s
)
A
Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Solution
Compute the area of each zone
A
A
= (25)(15) = 375 m
2
A
B
= (37.5)(22.5) 375 = 469 m
2
A
C
= (50)(30) 469 = 656 m
2
Example of Determining
Coefficient of Subgrade
Reaction
Solution
Compute the design k
s
values
ACI suggests varying k
s
from its computed value to
5 or 10 times the computed value, then base the
structural design on the worst condition
A
A
(k
s
)
A
+A
B
(k
s
)
B
+A
C
(k
s
)
C
=( A
A
+A
B
+A
C
)(k
s
)
avg
375(k
s
)
A
+(469)(1.5)(k
s
)
A
+(656)(2)(k
s
)
A
=1500(k
s
)
avg
2390(k
s
)
A
=1500(k
s
)
avg
(k
s
)
A
=0.627(k
s
)
avg
(k
s
)
A
=(0.627)(4000)=2510 kN / m
2
(k
s
)
B
=(0.627)(1.5)(4000)=3765kN / m
3
(k
s
)
C
=(0.627)(2)(4000)=5020kN / m
3
Structural Design of Mats
Structural design requires two analyses
Strength
Evaluate these requirements using factored loads and LRFD
design methods
Mat must have sufficient thickness T and reinforcement to
safety resist these loads
T should be large enough so that no shear reinforcement is
required
Servicability
Evaluate using unfactored loads for excessive deformation at
places of concentrated loads, such as columns, soil non-
uniformities, mat non-uniformities, etc.
This is the equivalent of a differential settlement analysis
Mat must be made thicker if this is a problem
Structural Design of Mats
Structural Design of Mats
Structural Design of Mats
Closed form solutions
Once popular; however, with the advent of computers,
have fallen out of favour
For example see http://www.vulcanhammer.net/download/piletoe.pdf
Finite difference methods
Finite element methods
Spring values as computed in the example can then be
used in finite element analysis
The stiffer springs at the edges will encourage the
foundation to sag in the centre, which is what we
actually see in foundations
Other Considerations in Mat
Foundations
Total settlement
"Bed of springs" solution should not be used to
compute total settlement; this should be done using
other methods
Bearing capacity
Mat foundations generally do not have bearing
capacity problems
With undrained silts and clays, bearing capacity needs
to be watched
Methods for spread footings can be used with mat
foundations, including presumptive bearing capacities
Questions