Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 2013, 3, 228-233

Published Online December 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojce)
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojce.2013.34027

Influence of the Elastic Modulus of the Soil and Concrete
Foundation on the Displacements of a Mat Foundation
Oustasse Abdoulaye Sall1*, Meissa Fall1, Yves Berthaud2, Makhaly Ba1
1

Département Génie Civil, UFR SI-Université de Thiès, Thiès, Sénégal
2
UFR Ingénierie, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
Email: *oustaz.sall@univ-thies.sn

Received November 20, 2013; revised December 12, 2013; accepted December 19, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Oustasse Abdoulaye Sall et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we suggest to study the behavior of a mat foundation on subsoil from the plate theory taking into account
the soil-structure interaction. The objective is to highlight the soil-structure interaction particularly the influence of the
rigidities of the soil and the concrete on the subgrade reaction (k) and the displacements of the mat foundation subjected
to vertical loads. From plate theory and the soil-structure interaction, the general equation is reached. This equation depends more on the subgrade properties than the concrete foundation properties. Consequently, the behavior of the mat
foundation is more influenced by soil properties than the concrete.
Keywords: Mat Foundation; Plate Theory; Soil-Structure Interaction; Mechanical Properties

1. Introduction

2. Modelisation

The structural and geotechnical calculations of civil engineering works involve the limit state method and require the determination of characteristic values for resistance and deformation criteria of structures and soils.
However, the geotechnical design is mainly based on the
determination of the displacement caused by the actions
applied to foundation and the determination of stresses
under limit state service. The structural design is strongly
based on the determination of stresses and displacements.
A computational approach that takes into account structural and geotechnical aspects related to the design of
foundation structures must be developed. It is then question of interaction between two bodies of very different
characteristics of deformability. The rupture is often followed by the formation of a thin region led in the direction of contact. This area is called soil-structure interface
and it is the location of the major displacements. This
work focused on the foundation slab and, more particularly, on the characterization of the soil-structure interface. A precise knowledge of moduli characterizes its
deformability and stress paths which should facilitate the
optimization of the structural and geotechnical design of
foundation.

A foundation is responsible for transmitting the loads
from the superstructure to the soil; it provides an interface between the upper part of the structure and the soil.
A mat foundation is a continuous reinforced concrete
slab and the study may be governed by the theory of
plates whose behavior can be studied from the Lagrange
equation which take into account the soil-structure interaction. The solution of the Lagrange equation is possible
with the use of the methods of Fourier series or finite
differences with well-defined boundary conditions. Characterization of the interface has also allowed us to see
that the soil-structure interaction is important for the design of foundation. Selvadurai [1] presented a detailed
analysis of the soil-foundation interaction problem, explaining the different approaches proposed to model this
interaction. These models recognize that soil reaction is a
linear function of the displacement of the soil-foundation interface layer. Several models have been developed:
 Winkler model [2],
 Elastic continuum model [1];
 Biparametric model [3];
 Filonenko Borodich model [4,5];
 Hetenyi model model [6];
 Pasternak model [7];

*

Corresponding author.

Open Access

OJCE

e: the thickness of the plate. y  y   x D 229 0.108 (4) 0. Open Access OJCE . T is the horizontal elastic modulus of subgrade reaction. Modeling of the system is shown in Figure 1.65 Es Es B 4 12 Eb I 1  s2 (3) Vesic [12] improved (3) by:  0. Poisson’s ratio is between where D is the flexural rigidity of the plate and is given by: Eb e3 where: Es is the modulus of subgrade. νs is the Poisson’s ratio of the subgrade.95 Es  Es B 4    1  s2  Eb I  0.95 Es  Es B 4   k 2 1  s  1  s2 Eb I      1 12 k  0.  Reissner model [8]. νb: Poisson’s ratio of the plate. k is the modulus of subgrade reaction.  Vlazov modified model [10].4 [13].108 Es  Es B 4    1  s2  Eb I  0. I is the moment of inertia of the cross section of the concrete. Equation (2) can be written as: and Equation (4) by:  2 w 2 w  2T  2  2   kw  q  x. B is the width of the foundation. Discretisation of the system. A. It should specify that the vertical modulus of subgrade reaction can be determined from the results of geotechnical testing.108 (7) Thus by combining (3) and (6).15 and 0. The problem is governed by the following general equation:  4 w 4 w 4 w  D 4  2 2 2  4  x y x   x (1)  12 1  b2 (2)  with: Eb: elastic modulus of the material constituting the plate.108 (6) Generally for foundations. Biot [11] developed an empirical formula for k expressed as follow: k 0. νb) resting on an elastic soil (Es.65 Es  E s B 4    1  s2  Eb I  (5)  1  k  0.108  1  is between 0.O.019 [13] (which leads to ignore this term in the expression) for k in Equation (6) which can be rewritten as follows: k  0. The plate is assumed to rest on a spring assembly infinitely close to each other with k as the modulus of reaction. Vlasov [9] proposes the following relation: Figure 1. SALL ET AL. These springs are connected by an elastic membrane of shear modulus (2T). Eb is the Young’s modulus of the concrete foundation. and the term  2   1  s  1.0025 and 1. k is expressed by the following equation: E  E B4  ka s2 s  1   EI   (8) where a and  are constants according to different authors (Table 1). The system is similar to a concrete slab (Eb. νs).95  2   1  s  0.  Vlazov and Leontiev model [9].

the non-linear continuous variable defined by Equation 10(a).69 0. y   Q  1   mπx   nπy    sin   L    B  1 amn sin   (13) with OJCE . the shear parameter model is given after integration by: T Open Access   12 1  s2 1   s 1  s   Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  0.91 0. For a foundation of infinite dimension. Φ(z) is a function which describes the variation of the displacement w(x.1043 0. Authors a  Biot (1937) [11] 0.1043 k  0.82 0. 230 Table 1. a uniform distribution of the forces applied to the foundation system is assumed.y) is constant (Q value) from each point of the foundation.95 0.82 Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  Yang (2006) [17] 0.74 0.0938 k  0. At first. Equations giving k [13].91 Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  Arul et al.65 (11) Before the calculation of displacements due to load.74 Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  0.1008 k  0.78 Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  Fischer et al.0938 0. it is possible to use.65 1/12 0. The displacement w0 is given by: w0  25000  e k (12) In the case of an elastic homogeneous soil. and the double Fourier series is used.y) is constant (Q value) for analytical solution.y) can be written as: q  x. a zero displacement at the edges of the plate is imposed. And for a linear variation of Φ(z). So q(x.0903 Liu (2000) [14] Daloglu et al. This displacement is constant on the entire extension of the interface and is a function of the thickness of the plate and the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction.0903 k  0. (2000) [15] 0.0868 Vesic (1963) [12] 0.78 0.87 Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  k 1 12 T   Es H 4 1  s2 1   s 1  s   0  2 dz   0   1 et   H   0 Selvadurai [1] suggests two expressions of Φ(z): z     z   1    H (10a)   sinh  H  z   L   Z   H  sinh    L  (10b) H: thickness of the soil layer (depth of the rigid substratum). (2000) [16] 0. This amounts to admitting that the stress q(x. this questionable assumption allows an accurate resolution of the problem using the Fourier series.95 Henry (2007) [18] 0. q(x.O. we assume a uniform distribution of the applied foundation system forces. it should be consider that the motion of the interface is a result of the weight of the slab. this is true.108 0. such that: Es  H k  0.0868 k  0.87 0. Although. (2008) [19] 0.108 k  0. A.0973 E s  Es B 4    1   2  EI  0.y) along the z axis.0973 k  0. If each edge is far from one to another. for the function Φ(z). Analytical Solutions (9) To a relatively deep layer of soil where the normal stress may vary with depth.69 Es  Es B 4    1   2  EI  0.1008 3. SALL ET AL.

the expression bmn can be given by the following relation: (20) The total displacement is obtained by summing the displacements given by Equations (12) and (25).8 0. SALL ET AL. Figure 2 shows the increase of k with the increase of Es.4 0. y) can also be decomposed into Fourier series: w  x. Figures 2 to 7 show the evolution of k according to the different parameters of the mechanical behavior model.2 1 0. OJCE .6 = = = = 8MPa 7MPa 6MPa 8MPa 1.6 0. y   1   mπx   nπy    sin    L   B  1 bmn sin   (17) Thus: (18) 2 2 w    nπ   mπx   nπy   1 1   bmn sin     sin  y 2  B  L   B   w x 2 y 2 (19)  1  2 2  mπ   nπ   mπx   nπy      bmn sin    sin   L B L        B  16Q   w  x . The results show that modulus of subgrade reaction and displacements varies slightly with the mechanical properties of concrete foundation and is more influenced by the (23) According to (23). A. we assume that w(x.4 1. These figures show that k and the displacements vary slightly with the mechanical properties of concrete foundation and are strongly dependent on elastic modulus of the soil foundation. 231 4 amn  L B 4  mπx   nπy  Q 0 0 sin    sin   dxdy LB  L   B  (14) 4 w    mπ   mπx   nπy   1 1   bmn sin    sin   (21) 4 x  L   L   B  amn  L B 4  L  mπx    B  nπ y   Q  cos  cos     (15)    LB  mπ  L 0   nπ  B 0  4 w    nπ   mπx   nπy   1 1   bmn sin    sin   (22) B L y 4      B  It result that for m and n impair: 16Q mnπ 2 (16) For the calculation of the displacements. Conclusion It appears from this study that the elastic modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of the subgrade are the most influential parameters on the displacements of the plate. y   2 1 1 π 2 2   mπ 2    nπ     bmn D       L   B      mπ 2  nπ 2    mπx   nπy  2T     sin    k  sin    L   B     L   B      1  mπx   nπy    sin    L   B  1 amn sin   amn   mπ   nπ  D    L   B   2 2 2    mπ 2  nπ 2  T 2           k   L   B   (24) The axial deflection is:  mπx   nπy  sin    sin    L   B  (25) 2   mπ 2  nπ 2    mπ 2  nπ 2       2Tmn     kmn Dmn     L   B     L   B       4. Open Access  bmn  4  1 1 1   2 2 w    mπ   mπx   nπy    1 1   bmn sin    sin   2 x  L   L   B  By replacing the differential equation governing the behavior of the system we have: elastic modulus of the soil. Modulus of subgrade reaction versus B/e ratio of the plate for various values of Es. Hence the importance of mastering the property of the foundation soil is to better 7 2 Modulus of subgrade reaction k (N/m3) amn  4 x 10 Es Es Es Es 1.O. Figures 3-5 show that k is sensitive to the mechanical properties of the soil foundation.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 B/e 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 2.8 1.

pp. “Die Lehhre von der Eiastizitat und Festigkeit.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1988)114:12 (2072) [4] M.1 0.6 0. M. 1988. SALL ET AL.2 0.03 Déplacements (m) Moduulus of subgrade reaction (N/m3) 1.org/10.4 100 Figure 3. Mosk.” Sb Tr. “Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction.org/10. 17. Displacements along the median of the plate for various values of Es.7 0. pp.6 0.8 0.” Developments in Geotechnical Engineering.doi. Inzh. Displacements (m) 0.025 0 0. Displacements along the median of the plate for various values of νb.015 0.50005-1 0.005 0. A.6 1.4 [1] 0.04 Eb=33GPa Eb=36GPa Eb=39GPa Eb=43GPa 0.8 0.3 0.015 0.6 0.035 33GPa 36GPa 39GPa 43GPa 0.8 0. “Parametric Study of Beams on Elastic Foundations. “A Very Simple Model of an Elastic Foundation Capable of Spreading the Load. V.2 0. Trans.4 0.04 Es=4MPa Es=6MPa Es=7MPa Es=8MPa 0.1 0.5 x/L A.005 0 0 0. 1979.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. 0. C.5 x/L 0. 1 Figure 5.025 0. “Some Approximate Theories of the Elastic Foundation. 0.9 1 Figure 4.035 0 OJCE .4 0. 3-18. [5] M.O.2 1 0. Dominicus.8 0.3 0. 20722082.1 0. M.03 Displacements (m) Déplacements (m) 0.7 0. 53.9 0.3 0.. Selvadurai.4 0. Vol.5 x/L 0.6 0 0.005 0.9 1 [2] E. 46.25 0.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 B/e 60 70 80 90 0 0.04 0.025 nus nus nus nus 0. Inst.8 1. P.1 Figure 7.04 x 10 Eb = Eb = Eb = Eb = 1. G.8 0. No. No. 232 7 0. Displacements along the median of the plate for various values of νs.” Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 114.3 0. Winkler.01 0.2 REFERENCES Eb=33GPa Eb=36GPa Eb=39GPa Eb=43GPa 0. Vallabhan and Y.doi. Filonenko-Borodich.7 0.015 = = = = 0. Vol.01 0 0. http://dx. 0. 0.03 0. Elektro.035 0.005 0. 7-9.2 0. Filonenko-Borodich.5 x/L 0.01 0 0. which are the vectors of disorder in the Open Access 0.7 0. 1867. 1945.02 1 Figure 6. 12.2 0. understand the behavior of foundation structures for optimal sizing of these and especially in order to limit the displacements. 1940.02 0. S.4 0. Modulus of subgrade reaction versus B/e ratio of the plate for various values of Eb.” Prague. Vol.015 0.02 0.9 0.6 0. pp.035 0.02 0.1016/B978-0-444-41663-6. Das.03 0. [3] C.01 0. Displacements along the median of the plate for various values of Eb. http://dx.3 structures.025 0.

” EJGE. Reissner. Pasternak.” University of Akron.” Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Bund. [19] S. V. N. No. 463-471.doi. A. pp.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 2000. Hetényi. Jerusalem. Vol. pp. “Rectangular Thick Plates on Winkler Foundation: Deferential Quadrature Element Solution. [7] P. http://dx. Das. 2008.org/10. “Beams.doi. 12. Vol. “Train-Induced Dynamic Response of Railway Track and Embankments on Soft Peaty Foundations. S.1712886 [12] A. G. T. 37. 152-155. T. 155-164. Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations. 2008. 117. http://dx. No. Winkler Bedding or Half-Space—A Comparison. L. “Simple Formulation for the Flexure of Plates on Nonlinear Foundation. “Deflection of Plates on Viscoelastic Foundation.org/10. 5.” University of Saskatchewan.” Journal of Applied Mechanics. “Bending of an Infinite Beam on an Elastic Foundation. pp. http://dx. 2000. http://dx. Vallabhan. Vol. [14] F. C.doi.” Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstro Liberaturi po Stroitelstvui Arkhitekture. 2.O. “Beams on Elastic Foundation: Theory with Applications in the Fields of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. “Values of k for Slab on Winkler Foundation. http://dx.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1743-1763. Ann Arbor. “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts in Rock.” University of Michigan Press. pp. Vol. Leontiev. No.” Journal of Applied Physics. “Beams on Foundation. “On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic Foundation by Means of Two Foundation Constants.1063/1. Arul. Vallabhan and Y. [6] M. 126.doi. pp. pp. Vesic. 1966. [10] C. 845-850.org/10. 144-145. [13] H.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:1( 110) OJCE . 134. OH. 2009. pp.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:5( 463) [16] F. Vol.” International Journal of Solids and Structures. Vol. 1963. Liu. Yang. Canada. L. D.doi. Daloglu and C. 2006. [18] M. Henry. 1946. No.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:6( 956) [11] M. Vlazov and U. Gamsjäger.org/10. 110-115. pp. [17] K. Vol.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1954.” Proceedings of 5th International Conference of Soil Mechanics.1016/S0020-7683(98)00306-0 [15] A. 14. [8] E. V. Moscow. 12. 1937. 2. “Modified Vlasov Model for Beams on Elastic Foundations. Z. “Beams on Elastic Subgrade and the Winkler’s Hypothesis. Fischer and E. 1958. “An Improved Method for Foundation Modulus Open Access 233 in Highway Engineering. A. [9] V. G. Vol. 80.” Technische Mechanike.org/10. Seetharaman and Abraham. Biot. 1991. 2007. 1. SALL ET AL. B. 6. No. 956-966.