Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAFE

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 6
Infinite Flat Plate on Elastic Subgrade

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
An infinite plate resting on elastic subgrade and carrying equidistant and equal
loads, P, is shown in Figure 6-1. Each load is assumed to be distributed
uniformly over the area u × v of a rectangle. A theoretical double series solution
to this example is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959).

The numerically computed deflections and local moments obtained from SAFE
are compared to the theoretical values, as shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2.

Analysis is confined to a single interior panel. To model the panel, three mesh
sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2, are used: 4 × 4, 8 × 8, and 12 × 12. The slab is
modeled using plate elements and the elastic support is modeled as a surface
support with a spring constant of k, the modulus of subgrade reaction. The edges
are modeled as line supports with a large rotational stiffness about the support
line. Point loads P/4 are defined at the panel corners. In the theoretical
formulation (Timoshenko and Woinowsky 1959), each column load P is assumed
to be distributed over an area u × v of a rectangle, as shown in Figure 6-1. To
apply the theoretical formulation to this problem, concentrated corner loads are
modeled as a uniformly distributed load acting over a very small rectangular area
where u and v are very small.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Plate size a×b = 360" × 240"
Plate thickness T = 15 inches
Modulus of elasticity E = 3000 ksi
Poisson's ratio v = 0.2
Modulus of subgrade reaction k = 1 ksi/in

Loading: Point Load P = 400 kips

(assumed to be uniformly distributed over an area u × v)

EXAMPLE 6 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

v
u u
2 (Typ.)
2 2 P
(Typ.)
v uv
2
P
uv

P
uv

FLOOR PLAN

a = 30'
k
v v
2 2
b = 20'

Y
u
X
2
u
2
T = 15"

A Typical Panel
Figure 6-1 Rectangular Plate on Elastic Subgrade

EXAMPLE 6 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED

 Comparison of deflection on elastic foundation.

RESULTS COMPARISON
Good agreement has been found between the numerical and theoretical deflection
for k = 1 ksi/in, as shown in Table 6-1, except near the concentrated load. The
consideration of shear strains in the SAFE element makes it deflect more near the
concentrated load. As the modulus k is changed, the distribution of pressure
between the plate and the subgrade changes accordingly. The particular case, as k
approaches 0, corresponds to a uniformly distributed subgrade reaction, i.e., to
the case of a “reversed flat slab” uniformly loaded with q = P/ab. In fact the
problem changes to that of Example 5, with the direction of vertical axis
reversed. In Example 5, for a uniform load of 100 psf (P = 60 kips), the
maximum relative deflection is calculated as 0.280. Applying the formulation
used here with k = 1 × 10-6 yields a deflection value of 0.279". Table 6-2 shows
the comparison of the SAFE local moments using the 12 × 12 mesh with the
theoretical results. The results agree well.

Table 6-1 Comparison of Displacements

Thin Plate Formulation

Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical

Displacement
X (in) Y (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh (in)

0 0 −0.0493 −0.05410 −0.05405 −0.05308

180 60 0.00091 0.00076 0.00080 0.00096

180 120 0.00040 0.00060 0.00064 0.00067

Thick Plate Formulation

Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical

Displacement
X (in) Y (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh (in)

0 0 −0.0436 −0.06011 −0.06328 −0.05308

180 60 0.00130 0.00074 0.00076 0.00096

180 120 −0.0019 0.00050 0.00059 0.00067

EXAMPLE 6 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Table 6-2 Comparison of Local Moments

Thin Plate Formulation
Moments (kip-in/in)

Location M 11 M 22

SAFE SAFE
X (in) Y (in) (12×12) Theoretical (12×12) Theoretical

10 10 37.99 35.97 37.97 35.56

10 50 7.38 7.70 −6.74 −6.87

10 110 −0.30 −0.27 −5.48 −5.69

80 10 −6.52 −6.89 1.98 1.72

80 50 −3.58 −3.78 −0.93 −1.02

80 110 −0.88 −0.98 −1.86 −1.69

Thick Plate Formulation

Moments (kip-in/in)

Location M 11 M 22

SAFE SAFE
X (in) Y (in) (12×12) Theoretical (12×12) Theoretical

10 10 36.77 35.97 36.73 35.56

10 50 7.13 7.70 −6.37 −6.87

10 110 −0.21 −0.27 −5.17 −5.69

80 10 −6.11 −6.89 2.05 1.72

80 50 −3.56 −3.78 −0.82 −1.02

80 110 −0.87 −0.98 −1.86 −1.69

EXAMPLE 6 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

COMPUTER FILE:
S06a-Thin.FDB, S06b-Thin.FDB, S06c-Thin.FDB, S06a-Thick.FDB, S06b-
Thick.FDB and S06c-Thick.FDB

CONCLUSION
The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

EXAMPLE 6 - 5