Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Spatial distribution of Winkler spring stiffness for rectangular mat

foundation analysis
D. Loukidis ⇑, G.-P. Tamiolakis
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Structural design of mat foundations of buildings is often done by performing static analysis of a slab
Received 11 January 2017 resting on vertical uncoupled Winkler springs. It is already well established that the simplifying assump-
Revised 7 September 2017 tion of a uniform modulus of subgrade reaction throughout the mat foundation leads to inaccurate results
Accepted 2 October 2017
that significantly underestimate the bending moments in the mat. This paper examines the spatial vari-
Available online 1 November 2017
ation of the Winkler spring stiffness constants that is necessary for the mat-on-springs analysis to pro-
duce the same slab deflections and bending moment diagrams as finite element analysis that treats
Keywords:
the soil as continuum. For this purpose, three-dimensional parametric analyses of slabs resting on elastic
Mat foundations
Finite element analysis
soil are performed using the finite element method for various values of soil elastic properties, slab geo-
Plate bending metrical characteristics and column load configurations. The finite element analysis results were used for
Winkler springs back-calculating analytically the equivalent Winkler spring constants at each node of the mat. Based on
Soil-stricture interaction the numerical results, equations describing the spatial distribution of spring stiffness are proposed. The
performance of the proposed equations is compared against existing spring stiffness spatial distribution
approaches used in practice.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction because it can be easily applied in most commercial structural

The mat is the type of shallow foundation commonly used in
the case of buildings sitting on soft and weak soils and/or transfer-
ring large loads to the ground. It is also often used in special pur-
pose structures such as storage tanks, silos and water towers. A
mat foundation is in essence a stiff slab that acts as a single foun-
dation element that covers the entire plan area of the structure. As
any shallow foundation, a mat foundation has to be checked
against bearing capacity failure and excessive total (average) set-
tlement. It has to be also structurally designed to adequately resist
differential settlements and withstand the bending and shear
forces that develop inside it.
A variety of methods are available for the structural analysis of
mat foundations, ranging from simple static analogues to elaborate
three-dimensional finite element analysis. The most common
method in current design practice is the Winkler spring approach
[40], in which the soil is represented in the analysis as linear ver-
tical springs supporting the mat. Despite being a rather rough ide-
alization of reality and the emergence of more accurate methods,
the Winkler spring approach still constitutes the state-of-practice
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: loukidis@ucy.ac.cy (D. Loukidis), geomitam@gmail.com
(G.-P. Tamiolakis).
analysis computer programs.
Many studies have pointed out the shortcomings of the original
basic Winkler spring approach, which assumes that the modulus of
subgrade reaction has the same value everywhere under the mat,
and have proposed alternative methods of various degrees of com-
plexity (e.g. [23,16,36,26]). One of these alternatives is the pseudo-
coupled approach, in which the mat still rests on vertical springs,
but with spring constants that vary across the mat depending on
the location of a given spring. The pseudo-coupled approach is
meant to improve the accuracy of the original Winkler spring
method while retaining its simplicity.
The goal of the present study is to establish the spatial distribu-
tion of spring stiffness coefficients under a mat foundation that
helps attaining the best possible accuracy in terms of deflections,
bending moments and shear force diagrams. This is achieved by
first performing a series of 3-dimensional finite element analyses
of rectangular mats resting on a linear elastic continuum repre-
senting the foundation soil. The resulting nodal displacements of
the mat are then used as input in the back-calculation of the equiv-
alent spring stiffness coefficient values at each node of a mat hav-
ing the same characteristics but this time resting on Winkler
springs. A parametric study is performed in order to investigate
the influence of the various parameters of the mat problem on

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.10.001
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
444 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
the spring stiffness distribution. The back-calculated spring con-
stants are also compared to those resulting from an advanced iter-
ative pseudo-coupled approach based on the Boussinesq solution.
Finally, equations are proposed for calculating the equivalent
spring stiffness values at any point of a rectangular mat foundation
and their performance is compared to that of existing approaches
used in practice. It should be noted that the present analysis
assumes that the soil behaves linear-elastically (an assumption
commonly made in current mat design practice). The results of this
study and the proposed equations could be used in the future as a
basis for the development of more rigorous spring models that take
into account the nonlinear character of soil behavior.
2. Knowledge background
2.1. Basic Winkler model
The Winkler spring method [40] assumes that the mat founda-
tion sits on vertical linear springs representing the deformable (lin-
ear elastic) soil (Fig. 1). The stiffness coefficient of a Winkler spring
Ks is expressed as the product of the area As of the portion of the
slab influenced by the spring (the tributary area) and the parame-
ter known as modulus of subgrade reaction ks, which is defined as:
q
ks ¼
w
where q is the foundation pressure exerted to the soil and w is the
resulting settlement. The estimation of ks presents inherent difficul-
ties because it does not constitute a fundamental material property
of the soil (such as the Young’s modulus), but a parameter defined
based on an arbitrary one-dimensional pressure-settlement con-
cept. As such, it is a variable that depends on both on the elastic
properties of the soil and the geometrical characteristics of the
column loads
node i
spring constant :
K si = ks × Α i
Fig. 1. Computational model of the Winkler spring analysis approach.
foundation (e.g., width and length of the mat). Hence, ks is project
specific and is usually estimated by performing calculations of the
overall settlement of the building assuming that the foundation is
perfectly rigid and using well established methods for footing set-
tlement calculation [8]. The settlement of the rigid foundation (uni-
form settlement) is very close to the average settlement of the
actual flexible foundation.
2.2. Coupling and the pseudo-coupled approach
In the static analogue of the Winkler spring method (Fig. 1), the
springs are ‘‘uncoupled”, meaning that they respond indepen-
dently of each other and the compression of one spring does not
influence the behavior of the neighboring spring. In reality, the
compression of the soil in one location under the mat will generate
vertical shear stresses and strains that are transmitted laterally and
thus influence the deformation at the locations of neighboring
springs. This coupling phenomenon is especially intense closer to
the edges of the mat foundation. Ignoring the coupling effects con-
stitutes a source of errors that leads to substantial underestimation
of mat differential settlements and maximum bending moments
[20]. The shortcoming of the original (uncoupled) spring method
is clearly illustrated by the simple example of a perfectly flexible
rectangular foundation (zero shear and bending stiffness) on an
ð1Þ elastic half-space loaded by a uniform vertical distributed load.
In this case, the uncoupled spring approach would predict uniform
settlement throughout the mat, while the rigorous solution based
on elasticity theory [35] predicts that the settlement at the center
of the loaded area should be twice the settlement at the corners.
A number of more accurate soil - mat foundation interaction
models have been developed that take into account coupling
effects [23,24,25,16,17,19,9,10,22] and predict the correct shape
of the loaded soil surface. Apart from springs, this models employ
mat foundation discretized in 2-
dimensional plate elements
tributary area Αi
spring i
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
other mechanical components, such as shear and flexural layers
and membranes, thus effectively departing from the one-
dimensional nature of the Winkler model and introducing the
effects of shearing. Recently, soil non-linearity was introduced in
coupled soil springs under a piled raft [22]. Despite the enhanced
rigorousness, these components inevitably increase the degree of
complexity and the difficulty of implementing the coupled
foundation-soil interaction models in ordinary structural analysis
software. Moreover, they often require extending the analysis
domain beyond the planar dimensions of the mat.
A simpler and more approximate alternative to the coupled
models is the ‘‘pseudo-coupled” approach [2,36,26,7,8], in which
the static analogue is the same as in the classical Winkler spring
method (Fig. 1), but with ks being different from point to point
across the mat, taking larger values near the edge of the foundation
compared to its center. For example, for the static analogue of
Fig. 1 to be able to predict the correct variation of settlement across
a perfectly flexible (zero rigidity) foundation subjected to a uni-
form distributed load, the ks value assigned at the corners of the
foundation needs to be twice as much the value assigned at the
center.
To date, the suitable spatial distribution of ks has not been
firmly established and the existing variations of the pseudo-
coupled method differ significantly between each other. The most
basic form of pseudo-coupling is to simply use for the springs con-
nected to the edge of the foundation twice as much ks as for the
springs at rest of the foundation [7]. A more elaborate version pro-
posed by ACI [2] and Bowles [7] dictates that ks should decrease
progressively from the edge to the center of the mat. This is
achieved by first performing a trial analysis with ks being the same
throughout the slab to obtain an estimate of the contact pressure
distribution. Then, based on the contact pressure, the average value
Drv,ave of the profile of vertical stress increase caused by the foun-
dation down to a depth of 4B (B: mat width) is calculated at
selected points along the central axis of the slab using the New-
mark [29] method. The new ks values are estimated by multiplying
the ks value operative at the edge of the foundation with the ratio
of the Drv,ave at the edge point to that at the point under
consideration.
Banavalkar and Ulrich [3] and Ulrich [36] developed an
advanced iterative version of the pseudo-coupled approach, called
the discrete area method. As in ACI [2], the problem is first ana-
lyzed assuming uniform ks distribution to obtain an estimate of
the mat deflections and the contact pressure distribution. Based
on the resulting contours of contact pressure, the mat-soil contact
area divided in small rectangular areas in which the contact pres-
sure could be considered to be practically constant. Subsequently,
Fig. 2. Division of mat into zones with different modulus of subgrade reaction values for pseudo-coupled mat analysis [8].
445
the settlements of the contact surface caused by the pressure of
each discrete area are calculated using Boussinesq [6] and Wester-
gaard [39] theories (in the case of uniform and layered soil profiles,
respectively) and the principle of superposition. Then, new esti-
mates of ks are calculated at each nodal point by dividing the cor-
responding contact pressure with the calculated settlement at that
point, and the static analysis of the mat is repeated. In each com-
putational iteration, the settlements are compared to the previ-
ously calculated mat deflections at nodal points (compatibility
check) and the iterative procedure is terminated once sufficient
convergence between the two is achieved.
Coduto [8] proposed a simpler version of the pseudo-coupled
method, which does not require a trial analysis or iterations.
According to this version, the mat foundation is divided in N
(two or more) concentric zones, with the central zone having half
the width and the length of the mat. Each zone i is assigned a dif-
ferent value of ks,i in such a way that ks increases from the inner to
the outer zones and the outmost zone has twice as much ks as the
central zone (i.e. ksN = 2ks1), with the additional condition that the
weighted (based on the zone areas) average of all ks,i (ks,ave) is
equal to the ks obtained from Eq. (1) using settlement w calcula-
tions that treat the slab as a large rigid footing (kr). Applying this
concept to a mat divided in three zones as shown in Fig. 2, with
areas A1 (central), A2 (intermediate), A3 (outer), and assuming that
for the intermediate zone ks2 = 1.5ks1, we obtain
A1 þ A2 þ A3
ks1 ¼ ks;ave  ð2Þ
A1 þ 1:5A2 þ 2A3
2.3. Continuum finite element analysis
The increase in computer power in the last two decades allowed
the use of the finite element method in mat foundation design in
an increasing rate. The finite element method can automatically
consider coupling and soil-foundation interaction effects by simu-
lating the soil, not as springs or other mechanical equivalents, but
as a volume of three dimensional continuum elements. Another
advantage of continuum finite element analysis (cFEA) is that it
can easily consider soil stress-strain non-linearity (e.g.,
[37,38,13,4]).
Despite being the computational method that can yield the
most realistic results to date (provided that sufficiently fine
meshes are used), its penetration in routine mat foundation engi-
neering is still rather limited because many structural analysis
and design software still do not include continuum elements.
Nonetheless, cFEA results can be used as a reference in examining
the validity and performance of the mat-on-springs model (Fig. 1).
446 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
Liao [26] performed 2-dimensional plane strain finite element
analysis of an elongated foundation slab (strip) resting on linear
elastic 2D continuum finite elements with the goal of establishing
the proper shape of the distribution of the equivalent modulus of
subgrade reaction across the mat. Moreover, Liao [26] examined
the effects of the elastic properties of soil and mat, the mat geo-
metrical characteristics, and the loading configuration. The equiv-
alent ks values were extracted from the FEA output by dividing
the contact pressure at the nodes of the beam elements by the cor-
responding nodal displacements. Liao [26] observed that for rela-
tively stiff mats, the form of loading (positions and relative
magnitude of column loads) does not influence significantly the
spatial distribution of ks. Hence, based on the numerical results,
Liao [26] compiled tables that give ks values as a function of the
distance from the central longitudinal axis of the strip mat, the
Poisson’s ratio and the thickness of the deformable soil layer. The
results show that ks takes an almost constant value in a central part
of the mat that has width approximately equal to 70% of overall
width of the mat and increases non-linearly towards the edges.
3. Methodology
3.1. Continuum finite element analysis
Three dimensional finite element analysis is utilized in this
study to establish accurate estimates of the mat deflections. The
analyses were performed using the commercial finite element soft-
ware ABAQUS [1]. The computational model consisted of a block of
8-noded (1st order) hexahedral elements (C3D8) representing the
soil. The mat foundation was placed at the central region of the
upper surface of the soil block (Fig. 3) and was modeled using 4-
noded (1st order) shell elements. Both full integration (S4) and
reduced integration with hourglass control (S4R5) shell element
formulations were tried and it was found that the choice is practi-
cally inconsequential to the analysis results, with discrepancies in
terms of nodal displacements not exceeding 0.06%. The elements
Fig. 3. Typical mesh used in the continuum finite element analysis.
forming the mat were squared-shaped with edge length equal to
0.5 m. These choices with respect to shape, size and order of ele-
ments are in line with common foundation engineering practice
and structural analysis software. Moreover, use of 1st order ele-
ments avoids the complexities of combining the Winkler spring
approach with higher order elements, which, aside from corner
nodes, include mid-edge and possibly interior nodes. The meshes
were constructed in such a way that the locations of the nodes of
the shell elements coincide with those of the upper faces of the
underlying soil elements. The foundation nodes were fully tied to
the corresponding soil nodes, hence there is no possibility of slip-
page between the mat and the soil. For optimal numerical accu-
racy, care was taken during meshing so that the solid elements
immediately underneath and around the mat are cubical (lowest
possible aspect ratio).
Both soil and mat were assumed to behave linearly elastic. The
soil profile was assumed to be uniform, with constant Young’s
modulus Es and Poisson’s ratio vs. All degrees of freedom at the lat-
eral and bottom boundaries of the model were fully restrained. The
width and length of the soil domain were set to be ten times the
width and length of the mat, respectively. This ensured that the
lateral boundaries of the model had negligible influence on the
mat settlement. The mat was loaded by concentrated nodal vertical
forces representing the column loads. The superstructure was not
included in the model and, thus, has no contribution to the stiff-
ness of the mat foundation.
To validate the FE model configuration described above, two
basic elastic settlement example problems were analyzed. First,
an analysis was performed with the soil surface being loaded by
a square uniform pressure distribution in the absence of mat. For
this problem, there is an exact closed-form solution by Steinbren-
ner [33]. The finite element analysis was performed for uniform
pressure 100kPa loading a square area of width B=10m and soil
with Es = 10,000 kPa and ms = 0.3. The distance between the free
surface and the bottom boundary was 100 m (H/B=10). The Stein-
brenner solution yields settlement 0.046 m at the corner of the
loaded area and 0.092 m at the center of the loaded area. The finite
element predictions were 0.045 m corner settlement and 0.096 m
center settlement, corresponding to numerical error of 2.2% and
4.3%, respectively. The second example is the same as the first
one with the difference that an extremely rigid square mat (thick-
ness 3 m, Emat = 32 GPa, B = 10 m) is placed between the dis-
tributed load and the soil. This mat can be considered as
perfectly rigid since the difference between the corner displace-
ment and the center displacement was only 1‰ of the average set-
tlement, which was equal to 0.0695 m. This settlement value
compares favorably with the semi-analytical prediction of
0.0746 m (6.8% error) following Fraser and Wardle [14] for a rigid
square foundation.
In Fig. 4, the response of the Abaqus S4 (full integration) and
S4R5 (reduced integration) elements in a problem of a mat resting
on Winkler springs is compared to that of the more traditional
Reissner-Mindlin plate elements, fully integrated and selectively
integrated with hourglass control. Hourglassing refers to the
unwanted spurious oscillations pattern often observed in the nodal
displacement profiles in the case of reduced or selective integra-
tion elements. Herein, selective integration with hourglass control
is done according to Belytschko et al. [5]. Following Belytschko
et al. [5], full Gauss quadrature (e.g. 2  2 quadrature rule in the
case of 4-noded elements) is used for the bending component of
the element stiffness matrix, while the shearing component of
the element stiffness matrix is the weighted average of two evalu-
ations, one using a single (reduced) point quadrature (with weight
factor 1  e) and one using a 2  2 (full) quadrature rule (with
weight factor e). For the boundary value problem studied herein,
we found that a factor e = 0.2 provides the best element perfor-
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459 447

the associated membrane stiffness were omitted since they play

negligible role in the boundary value problem at hand.
The problem of a mat on Winkler springs is governed by the fol-
lowing system of n linear equations:

½K tot ½U ¼ ½F ) ð½K mat  þ ½K springs Þ½U ¼ ½F ð3Þ

where [Ktot] is the total stiffness matrix of the static analogue

(Fig. 1), [Kmat] is the stiffness matrix of the assembly of plate ele-
ments composing the mat, [Ksprings] is the diagonal stiffness matrix
of the contribution of the Winkler springs, [U] is the degrees of free-
dom matrix (vertical nodal displacements wi and rotations ui):
2 3
w1
6u 7
6 27
6 7
6 u3 7
6 7
6w 7
½U ¼ 6
6
47
7 ð4Þ
6 u5 7
6 7
6 7
6 u6 7
4 5
..
.

and [F] is the nodal actions matrix:

2 3 2 3
F1 F1
6 7
6 M2 7 6 07
6 7 6 7
6 M3 7 6 7
6 7 6 07
6 7 6 7
½F ¼ 6 F 7 6 F4 7
6 4 7¼6 7 ð5Þ
6 M5 7 6 7
6 7 6 07
6 7 6 7
6 M6 7 4 0 7
6
5
4 5
.. ..
. .

Given that in this study it is assumed that the foundation

receives from the superstructure only vertical forces Fi, the nodal
moments Mi are all equal to zero. Each of the n/3 equations of
the above system that pertain to vertical force equilibrium can
be written as

K mat i;1 w1 u2 þ K mat i;3 u3 þ    þ K mat i;n2 wn2

þ K mat i;2
Fig. 4. Comparison of behavior of various types of elements: (a) vertical displace- þ K mat i;n1 un1 þ K mat i;n un þ K si wi ¼ F i ð6aÞ
ments along the edge and (b) along the centerline (y = 0) of a mat on Winkler
springs.
and each of the 2n/3 equations pertaining to moment equilibrium
can be written as

K mat j;1 w1 þ K mat j;2 u2 þ K mat j;3 u3 þ    þ K mat j;n2 wn2

mance in terms of hourglass control. The mat foundation dimen-
sions and load configuration are shown in Fig. 4. The modulus of
subgrade reaction ks was set equal 1000 kN/m3 throughout the
slab. It can be observed that the S4 and S4R5 elements produce
almost identical results, which are in close agreement with those
obtained using Mindlin plate elements with selective integration.
Contrarily, full integration Mindlin elements exhibit comparatively
overly stiff behavior. Selective integration is known to have supe-
rior performance over full integration [11,21].
3.2. Determination of equivalent spring constants
The mat deformations resulting from the continuum finite ele-
ment analyses (cFEA) are used here as input in the back-calculation
of the equivalent spring coefficient Ks values at each node of the
mat. The back-calculation was done using an algorithm [34] writ-
ten in MATLAB [27], where the discretization of the mat with plate
elements was made to be the same as in the cFEA (4-noded planar
elements with size 0.5 m  0.5 m). The plate elements had exactly
the same formulation as the Abaqus S4R5 shell elements with the
difference that the in-plane (horizontal) displacement DOFs and
þ K mat j;n1 un1 þ K mat j;n un ¼ 0 ð6bÞ
Knowing the wi and ui from the cFEA, Eq. (6a) can be directly
solved with the respect to the unknown spring constant Ksi. Alter-
natively, the rotations ui could be treated as unknowns (2n/3) and
the system of Eqs. (6a) and (6b) (n equations) be solved with a total
of n unknowns, i.e. the n/3 spring constants Ksi plus the 2n/3 rota-
tions ui. Either approach produces exactly the same results. This is
because the equations of the form of Eq. (6b) can be seen as an
independent system of 2n/3 equations and 2n/3 unknowns that
uniquely relate the nodal rotations to the nodal displacements,
and this relation is influenced only by the type of element used
for the discretization of the mat. So, for a given set of wi values,
the system of equations (6b) will produce the same ui values as
those developing in the cFEA.
Analysis of a mat-on-springs problem using the Ksi values
extracted using this back-calculation methodology was found to
result in nodal vertical displacements and rotations that are equal
down to the 9th significant digit to those produced originally by
the corresponding cFEA solution, with this negligible discrepancy
being due to truncation error [34].
448 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
3.3. Boussinesq-based iterative solution
For comparison purposes, computations were also done using
an iterative solution procedure based on the discrete area method
of Ulrich [36], which is the most advanced among the available
pseudo-coupled approaches. This iterative method is slightly mod-
ified herein to enhance automation and facilitate its algorithmic
implementation. The final product of a mat-on-springs analysis
using the Ulrich [36] method is not only the mat displacements,
but also the corresponding distribution of spring constants com-
patible with the Boussinesq theory. The computational steps of
the method are as follows:
(1) Initially, the mat rests on Winkler springs having stiffness
that is consistent with a uniform modulus of subgrade reac-
tion. This initial uniform value can be set equal to that cor-
responding to a perfectly rigid foundation. It should be
noted that the computational procedure always converges
to results that are independent of the initial guess of modu-
lus of subgrade reaction, which affects only the number of
iterations needed to achieve convergence. The initial static
solution of the mat-on-springs problem yields the first guess
of nodal vertical displacements w and spring reactions Fs.
(2) The obtained spring reaction at any given node j, Fsj (Fig. 5) is
used as loading for the calculation of the vertical displace-
ments wB at the surface of an elastic half-space based on
the Boussinesq theory. The reaction Fsj, applied as an equal
and opposite force on the surface of the elastic half-space,
causes a vertical displacement DwB,ij at the surface of the
half-space at the location of a node i given by the following
equation [6]:
F sj ð1  v 2s Þ
DwB;ij ¼ ð7Þ
pEs rij
where rij is the distance between points (nodes) i and j. The Boussi-
nesq theory predicts that the displacement exactly at the point of
application of the force (i.e. i = j) is infinite. Hence, for i = j, Fs is
not applied as a concentrated load but as an equivalent uniform
pressure over the tributary area Ai of spring i. In this case, the
Fig. 5. Schematic of the Boussinesq-based iterative pseudo-coupled method.
corresponding vertical displacement at the center of the tributary
area is calculated using the Steinbrenner [33] solution:
F si ð1  v 2s Þdi
DwB;ii ¼ 1:12 ð8Þ
Ai Es
where di is the width of the tributary area of node i.
The spring reactions could have been applied to the soil as uni-
form pressures at the corresponding tributary areas for all nodes,
i.e. not only for i = j but also for i – j. This alternative approach
would have been completely equivalent to the discrete area
method of Ulrich [36], with the discrete areas being the tributary
areas. Nonetheless, it can be proven mathematically (using Eqs.
(7) and (8)) that, for mat discretization in elements of 0.5 m 
0.5 m in size, the maximum possible difference in DwB,ij between
the two approaches is only 4%.
Adding the contributions of all reaction forces Fsj exerted on the
elastic half-space, the vertical displacement of the surface of the
elastic half-space at the location of any given node i is
X
N total
wB;i ¼ DwB;ij ð9Þ
j¼1
where Ntotal is total number of nodes in the mat.
(3) The displacements wB,i of the surface of the elastic half-space
are compared to the mat displacements wi from the mat-on-
spring calculations and used for obtaining new guesses for
the Winkler spring constants at each mat node using the fol-
lowing equation:
ðnewÞ wi ðprev iousÞ
K si ¼ K ð10Þ
wB;i si
The spring constant values obtained from Eq. (10) are used in a
new solution of the mat-on-springs problem.
Steps 2 and 3 are repeated until wi and wB,i converge to each
other down to a small tolerated relative difference. In this study,
convergence is assumed to have been achieved once the ratio
|wi  wB,i|/|wB,i| becomes less than 104 for all nodes. The analyses
based on the iterative method described above were performed
using an algorithm written in MATLAB.
4. Numerical results
Continuum finite element analyses (cFEA) were performed for
the load configurations (i.e. number, location, and relative magni-
tude of column loads) shown in Fig. 6. Most of the configurations
reflect the fact that the corner and edge columns usually carry
smaller loads than the interior columns. Configurations C1, C6
and C8 have loads that are proportioned according to the column
tributary areas, while C2 and C4 deviate from this rule. In the case
of C3, C5, C7 and C10, the resultant of the column forces does not
pass through the center of the slab, i.e. the foundation is loaded
eccentrically, inducing overall rotation of the foundation. For C7,
in particular, there is load eccentricity in both x- and y-axes. The
column spacing S ranged from 4 m to 8 m, resulting in mat dimen-
sions in the 10 m to 20 m range (typical for single and multi storey
residential buildings) and the thickness of the mat d from 0.5 m to
1 m. It should be noted that, unlike the mat settlements, moments
and shear forces, the back-calculated spring stiffness Ks coefficients
are independent of the value of the load Q shown in Fig. 6, given
that both soil and mat materials are assumed to be linear elastic.
Column loads in indeterminate structures, such as typical frame
buildings, depend on the differential settlements. A convex
deformed shape of the slab, such as the one shown in Fig. 4, would
lead to an increase of the central column loads and a reduction of
the peripheral ones. The opposite will happen in the case of a
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
Fig. 6. Loading configurations considered in the parametric study.
concave deformed shape. Nonetheless, the large thickness of the
mats constructed in reality (d = 0.5 m for single storey dwellings
to 3 m for high rise buildings) and considered in this study
(d = 0.5–1.0 m), combined with the relatively small stiffness of
soils, results in mat differential settlements between consecutive
columns that rarely exceed 1.5 cm, even for tall multi-storey build-
ings (e.g., [36,18]). Consequently, any redistribution of column
loads is expected to be less than 50% of the prescribed column
loads [30,32] and the actual column load distribution for case C1,
for example, will be between C1 and C2 or C4. This is one of the
reasons the parametric study includes loading combinations C2
and C4, which deviate from the column tributary area concept
(C1, C6, C8). In any case, the analysis results presented is subse-
quent sections indicate that the equivalent spring stiffness
distribution is practically insensitive to the exact form of the
column load distribution.
449
The Young modulus of the mat Em was set equal to 32 GPa and
the Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.2 in all analyses. In most of the cases
examined, the Young modulus of the soil Es was 10 MPa, a value
that is consistent with soft clay or loose sand, and the Poisson’s
ratio was equal to 0.3. Values of Es equal to 1 MPa and 100 MPa
and vs equal to 0.15 and 0.45 were also considered. To quantify
how much flexible is the foundation compared to the soil, Meyer-
hof [28] introduced the relative stiffness factor given by the follow-
ing expression:
Em d
3
Rs ¼ ð11Þ
12Es B3
For the combinations of problem parameters examined herein,
Rs ranges from 0.011 to 1.1. A foundation is characterized as rigid
if Rs > 0.5.
450 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459

4.1. Vertical displacement profiles
Fig. 7 shows examples of vertical displacement profiles along
the x central axis of the mat (y = 0). The vertical displacements
are normalized with respect to the settlement wr should the foun-
dation were of infinite rigidity [15]:
qave Bð1  v 2s Þ
wr ¼ C f
Es
where qave is the average bearing pressure, which is equal to the
sum of all the column loads divided by the mat area. The factor Cf
is a function of the foundation aspect ratio B/L and the thickness
H of the compressible soil underneath the foundation (Fig. 3). Based
on numerical results by Fraser and Wardle [14] and Chow [12], who
employed a computational method that combines the Boussinesq
analytical solution with finite element analysis, the factor Cf can
be adequately approximated by the following formula:
 0:45
0:85 BL
ð12Þ Cf ¼    1þexpð5v 3s Þ ð13Þ
1 þ 0:1 2 þ BL HB
A general observation from (Fig. 7) is that the vertical displace-
ments of the mat are comparable to wr (w/wr around 0.95). Hence,
wr could play effectively the role of a reference displacement. By
extension, the spring stiffness corresponding to a perfectly rigid
foundation (Kr) could be used as a basis for establishing the varia-
tion of Ks across the mat, as shown later in this paper.
The displacement profiles are either predominantly concave or
convex depending mainly on the loading configuration and the
length of the mat (Fig. 7b). The larger the number of loads across
the mat (configurations C6 and C8) and the larger the mat size,
the more likely is for the displacement profile to be concave
despite having column loads at the mat edges. Fig. 7c contains
one case were the loading is non-symmetric (C3), causing the
mat to develop overall rotation.

4.2. Back-calculated Winkler spring stiffness

Fig. 8 shows the spatial distribution of back-calculated spring

Fig. 7. Examples of profiles of settlement along mat central axis (y = 0) from cFEA.
stiffness Ks from four continuum finite element analyses with dif-
ferent mat geometry and loading configurations. The common
characteristic among the distributions is that Ks has relatively
small values in a rather wide central region of the mat, indepen-
dently of the mat aspect ratio (L/B=1 or L/B=2) and whether the
loading is concentrated in the middle (loading C9) or more evenly
distributed across the mat (loading C6). Closer to the mat edges
(excluding the corner regions), the Ks rises sharply to values 2.5–
3.5 times the Ks at the mat center. This is in agreement with the
findings of Liao [26] based on 2D plane strain cFEA (strip mat).
For similar relative stiffness ratio and Poisson’s ratio values, the
Liao [26] results give back-calculated spring constant Ks at the edge
of the mat approximately 2.75 times (5.5 times in terms of modu-
lus of subgrade reaction ks) larger than that at the center. Accord-
ing to the present cFEA, at the mat corners, Ks attains its maximum
values, which are 3–4.5 times larger than those operative near the
center.
For the reminder, the Ks distributions will be presented normal-
ized with respect to a reference spring stiffness Kr. The Kr is chosen
to be the spring constant corresponding to a perfectly rigid mat
foundation (zero flexibility), which is calculated according the fol-
lowing formula derived based on Eq. (12):
Es Ainner
K r ¼ kr Ainner ¼ ð14Þ
C f ð1  m2s ÞB
where kr is the modulus of subgrade reaction for a perfectly rigid
mat and Ainner is the tributary area of the spring neglecting the pres-
ence of the boundaries of the mat. This means that, for springs
attached to the edge and corners of the mat, the tributary area is
calculated as if they were inner springs. The choice of using Ainner
instead of the actual tributary area for the springs at the mat bound-
ary is made in order to get smooth Ks distributions that could be
easily fitted by an analytical expression, as it will be shown in the
next section.
In Fig. 9, the Ks distributions back-calculated from cFEA are
compared to those from the Boussinesq-based iterative procedure
for a square mat 10 m wide and 0.5 m thick, on soil with Es = 10
MPa and vs = 0.3, for three different loading configurations
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459 451

Fig. 8. Distribution of back-calculated spring stiffness Ks from analyses with soil properties Es = 10 MPa, vs = 0.3 and mat thickness d = 0.75 m.

(C1, C2 and C3). It can be seen that the distributions from the two
methods are qualitatively similar, with the basic characteristics
being the large central region with small Ks and the sharp rise of
Ks near the mat edges, especially at the corners. The same trends
can be observed in the Ks profiles (along the centerline and the
edge of the mat) shown in Fig. 10 for a square mat 16 m wide
and 0.75 m thick loaded with 9 column loads (loading C1) and 25
column loads (loading C6). Both methods agree on that the Ks is
around 0.5Kr in the central region of the mat. However, according
to the Boussinesq-based iterative method, the increase of Ks
towards the corners of the mat is distinctively sharper compared
to that calculated based on cFEA. For example, the corner Ks values
from the iterative method in Fig. 9a and b are 43% and 39% larger
than those from cFEA, respectively. In addition, the Ks predicted
by the iterative method in the central plateau region is slightly
lower than that from cFEA (Fig. 10).
In the case of load configuration C2 (Fig. 9b), the loading is sym-
metric with respect to both x and y-axes, but the edges parallel to
the x-axis are loaded with larger loads and, as a result, sink into the
soil more than the other two edges. This results in a more intense
coupling effect and, consequently, in larger Winkler spring con-
stants along the edges parallel to the x-axis than to the y-axis.
The case shown in Fig. 9c (loading configuration C3) illustrates
the effect of an non-symmetric distribution of column loads lead-
configuration C3 is equal to 1/12 of the mat width. We see that
the Ks distribution also turns out to be asymmetric, with Ks taking
the largest values at the edge that sinks the most into the soil
(x = 5 m) due to the overall rotation of the slab. Moreover, the con-
trast in edge spring stiffness in the case of eccentric loading
(Fig. 9c) is much more striking than in the symmetric loading case
of Fig. 9b.
5. Proposed equations for Ks distribution
In this section, two different equations approximating the Ks
distribution will be proposed for potential use in mat static analy-
sis. The first equation is a 6th degree polynomial that fits relatively
well the ‘‘cup” shape of the back-calculated Ks distributions for the
range of problem parameters examined in the present study, while
the second equation, although much simpler and very roughly
approximating the Ks distribution, is found to yield equally accu-
rate predictions with respect to mat bending moments.
The Ks distributions back-calculated from cFEA can be approxi-
mately fitted by the following 6th degree polynomial:
( " 6  6 #
x þ 0:1ex y þ 0:1ey
K s ¼ K r ð0:55 þ C H1 Þ 1 þ 2C H2 þ
L=2 B=2
    

ex x ey y
ing to total load eccentricity (i.e. resultant of the column loads does þ4 þ ð15Þ
L L=2 B B=2
not pass through the center of mat). The load eccentricity in load
452 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459

connuum FEA Boussinesq-based

(a)
connuum FEA Boussinesq-based

(b)

connuum FEA Boussinesq-based

(c)
Fig. 9. Comparison of Ks distribution back-calculated from continuum finite element analysis (cFEA) with that from the Boussinesq-based iterative solution for a mat with L =
B = 10 m, S = 5 m, d = 0.5 m on soil with Es = 10 MPa, vs = 0.3 and different loading configurations: (a) C1, (b) C2, and (c) C3.

with the x-axis oriented parallel to the longer dimension of the mat where xQi and yQi are the lever arms of column load Qi with respect
(length L), where ex and ey are the eccentricities of the resultant of to the mat center lines. The factors CH1 and CH2 introduce the influ-
column loads along the x- and y-axes, respectively. The eccentrici- ence of the presence of an undeformable substratum at depth H
ties are calculated using the formulas below the mat foundation and are given by the following
P expression:
Q xQ i
ex ¼ P i ð16aÞ  
Qi H
C H1 ¼ 0:45 exp 2:2 ð17aÞ
P B
Q iy
ey ¼ P Qi ð16bÞ  
Qi B
C H2 ¼ exp 0:4 ð17bÞ
H
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459 453

Fig. 10. Comparison of Ks profiles from cFEA and Boussinesq-based iterative

solution for a mat with L = B = 16 m along centerline and along edge.

The coefficients of the 6th degree polynomial were determined

using non-linear regression over the cFEA back-calculated Ks val-
ues. The regression revealed that the coefficients of the 2nd to
5th degree terms were approximately equal to zero and thus could
be omitted from the expression. The 1st degree terms in Eq. (15)
are operative only if mat is loaded eccentrically (ex – 0 and/or ey
– 0) and their role is to effectively rotate the Ks distribution, as
observed in Fig. 9c. The coefficient of the 6th degree term is set
to decrease with the ratio of mat width B to the thickness of the
deformable soil H. This is because the analyses show only a mild
increase of Ks towards the mat edges in cases of a mat resting on
a relatively thin compressible layer. The quality of the fit of Eq.
(15) can be seen in Figs. 11–17, which are presented in the next
section.
Implementation in foundation engineering practice of Eq. (15),
which requires calculation and assignment of a different Ks value
at each mat node, may be cumbersome. Hence, an alternative
and simpler equation is also proposed, according to which all inner
nodes are connected to springs with stiffness 65% of Kr (provided
that H  B), while much higher values are assigned to the springs
of the edge nodes depending on the number of edge nodes (nodes
along the mat perimeter) Nedge relative to the total number of
nodes Ntotal in the mat: Fig. 11. Effect of soil Young’s modulus on the spring stiffness distribution.
(
0:65K r cH1 for inner nodes
Ks ¼   ð18Þ
0:65 þ 0:35 NNtotal K r cH2 for edge nodes for cases of H  B (i.e., cH1 = cH2 = 1.0). The latter condition stems
edge
from the fact that, for most of the cases examined with H  B,
The multipliers cH1 and cH2 are factors that introduce the effect the average of the cFEA back-calculated Ks is 0.9–1.0 times the
of the deformable soil thickness H and are given by the following Kr. The coefficients appearing in Eqs. (18) and (19) were chosen
equations, provided that B/H < 5: after establishing, using the steepest descent method, the optimal
uniform Ks value for the inner nodes and the optimal uniform Ks
B value for the edge nodes that lead to the best possible match
cH1 ¼ 1 þ 0:08 ð19aÞ
H between the deflections from the mat-on-springs analysis and
those obtained from cFEA.
B Eq. (18) does not take into account the effect of load eccentricity
cH2 ¼ 1  0:12 ð19bÞ
H and, thus, does not predict the associated rotation of the Ks distri-
The basic idea behind Eq. (18) is to have an enhanced edge bution. Nonetheless, it will be shown in the next section that using
spring stiffness, as suggested by Bowles [7], while the total stiff- this simple Ks distribution results in adequately accurate mat
P bending moments predictions.
ness of all springs combined, K s;i , is always equal to Kr  Ntotal,
454 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
Fig. 12. Effect of soil Poisson ratio on the spring stiffness distribution.
Fig. 13. Effect of mat thickness on the spring stiffness distribution.
6. Influence of problem variables on Ks distribution
The effect of the soil Young’s modulus Es on the normalized
spring stiffness distribution can be seen in Fig. 11, which presents
results from analyses of the same mat problem, i.e. mat 10 m wide,
0.75 m thick, with loading configuration C1 (Fig. 11a) and C8
(Fig. 11b), but with different Es values ranging from 1 MPa to
100 MPa. We see that, in all three cases, Ks at the mat corners turns
to be 2.5–3 times larger than Kr, while Ks/Kr falls in the 0.5–0.6
range in the central region. The main qualitative difference
between the distributions shown in Fig. 11 is that for Es = 100
MPa, which for the given problem corresponds to a relative stiff-
ness factor 0.011, the Ks distribution shows small local peaks at
the points of application of column loads along both the edge
and the centerline. Eq. (15) cannot capture these local peaks.
Fig. 14. Profiles of Ks for various loading configurations without eccentricity.
Fig. 15. Effect of thickness of deformable soil on the spring stiffness distribution.
Nonetheless, it will be demonstrated later that this shortcoming
does not affect the bending moments obtained from mat static
analysis employing Eq. (15).
The Poisson’s ratio m and the thickness of the mat foundation d
have practically no influence on the Ks/Kr (Figs. 12 and 13), in
accordance with the findings of Liao [26] for strip (2D) mats. The
loading configuration of the mat has a slightly more pronounced
effect (Fig. 14), with the curves of Ks/Kr corresponding to the mat
edge being more spread apart compared to the previous figures.
Generally, a large number of column loads acting on the edge
(e.g., cases C6 and C8) results in roughly 35% larger Ks/Kr values
at the mat edge compared to the case of a mat loaded only by a
central load (C9). Nonetheless, it was judged that the effect of load-
ing configuration on Ks is not strong enough, from a practical per-
spective, to be taken into account in Eq. (15).
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
Fig. 16. Profiles of Ks for loading configurations with eccentricity in one axis.
The Ks/Kr distribution depends heavily on the presence of an
undeformable substratum at depth H, provided that H/B is less
than 1 (Fig. 15). As the thickness of the deformable foundation soil
layer decreases, the inner Ks/Kr values increase, while the Ks/Kr at
the edge decreases, apparently converging progressively towards
unity. The dashed lines (Eq. (15) predictions) follow the observed
trends thanks to the soil thickness factors CH1 and CH2. The perfor-
mance of Eq. (15) in predicting the equivalent Ks distribution in the
case of eccentrically loaded mats can be seen in Fig. 16 (single axis
eccentricity) and Fig. 17 (double axis eccentricity). Eq. (15) cap-
tures adequately the rotation of the Ks/Kr distribution, with devia-
tions becoming relatively large in the case of loading C5 (Fig. 16b),
in which case the load eccentricity is equal to 1/6 of the mat width.
The results of the parametric study suggest that there is no need
for the Ks distribution to be a function of the relative stiffness factor
Rs. The parametric runs were performed for mat thickness values
encountered in practice (d  0.5 m) and not very stiff soils (Es 
455
Fig. 17. Profiles of Ks for loading configuration with eccentricity in both axes.
100 MPa). Analyses using the Boussinesq-based iterative approach
with mat thickness values well outside this range show that for d <
0.25 m (Rs < 0.004), Ks distributions start to deviate significantly
from those shown in the figures of this section. On the contrary,
increasing d to 3 m (or even more) leads to no change in the Ks dis-
tribution. Hence, it has to be noted that the proposed Ks distribu-
tions (Eqs. (15) and (18)) may not be applicable for very thin
mats and/or very stiff soils/soft rocks (for which E > 100 MPa).
7. Effect of Ks distribution on moment and shear force diagrams
One of the main purposes of the static analysis of a mat founda-
tion in practice is the determination of the required steel reinforce-
ment based on moment and shear force diagrams. Fig. 18
demonstrates the influence of the assumed spring stiffness distri-
bution under a mat on the calculated bending moments (per unit
mat width), mx, along the mat central longitudinal axis (y = 0) in
a mat-on-springs static analysis. The moment is normalized with
respect to the sum of the column loads RQ times the column spac-
ing S. The moment diagrams shown in each plot correspond to the
spring stiffness distributions established herein, namely the Ks dis-
tributions established using the cFEA (Abaqus) results and the
Boussinesq-based iterative approach of Ulrich [36], along with
those predicted by the proposed equations, Eqs. (15) and (18). In
addition, Fig. 18 plots results obtained using the Ks distributions
commonly assumed in practice, namely (1) uniform modulus of
subgrade reaction ks throughout the mat (i.e., the original, uncou-
pled Winkler approach), (2) multiplying by a factor of 2 the ks for
the springs lying at the edge of the mat [7], (3) considering concen-
tric zones of different ks as shown in Fig. 2 [8]. For the calculations
using the method of Fig. 2, a size factor rB for the intermediate zone
(zone B) equal to 1/8 is assumed herein, resulting, according to Eq.
(2) and Fig. 2, to ks1 = 0.63kr, ks2 = 0.94kr and ks3 = 1.25kr. It should
be noted that, in the case of the distributions used in practice (uni-
form ks, doubling ks at the edge, and the Fig. 2 ks distribution), the
concept of tributary areas applies as discussed in the Knowledge
Background section and shown in Fig. 1. In the case of an eccentri-
cally loaded mat (Fig. 18g and h), the plots show also the bending
moment curves obtained using Eq. (15) but with the terms related
to load eccentricity omitted (i.e., inputting ex = ey = 0). The
Boussinesq-based solution, as employed herein, assumes an infi-
nitely extending soil layer under the mat. Hence, this method
456 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459

Fig. 18. Diagrams of bending moment along mat central axis (y = 0) for various spring stiffness distributions.
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
Fig. 19. Profile of settlement along mat central axis (y = 0) from analysis with
eccentric loading for various spring stiffness distributions.
Fig. 20. Examples of shear force diagrams along mat central axis (y = 0) for various spring stiffness distributions: (a) central loading, (b) eccentric loading.
457
was not applied in the analysis of Fig. 18f, in which the thickness of
the deformable soil layer H is very small (¼ of the mat width B).
The agreement in moment predictions using the Ks from the
proposed equations, cFEA and the Boussinesq-based iterative solu-
tion [36] is very good in all plots of Fig. 18. Eq. (18) performs
equally well as Eq. (15) in predicting bending moments, even in
the cases of eccentrically loaded mats (Fig. 18g, h), despite the sim-
plicity of Eq. (18) and the fact that it does not take into account the
effects of load eccentricity on the shape of the Ks distribution. In
fact, analysis with Eq. (15) yields almost the same bending
moment diagram, even when omiting the eccentricity related
terms of the equation (Fig. 18g, h). This suggests that the
eccentricity-induced rotation of the Ks distribution, which was
observed in Figs. 9c, 16 and 17, does not practically influence the
inner stress state of the mats. However, neglecting the eccentricity
related terms in Eq. (15) or using Eq. (18) leads to a significant
overestimation of the overall rotation of the mat (Fig. 19) by
>80%. Only consideration of the complete Eq. (15) ensures an accu-
rate prediction of the mat rotation due to eccentric loading that
matches adequately the results based on cFEA and the
Boussinesq-based solution.
458 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
Generally, the approaches used in current practice underesti-
mate substantially the positive peak bending moments (bottom
fiber in tension) and overestimate peak negative moments (top
fiber in tension). The uniform ks approach exhibits the worst per-
formance, with errors that exceed 70% in certain cases
(Fig. 18a, b), an issue that has already been raised in the technical
literature [7,8,19]. For the cases shown in Fig. 18, the uniform ks
distribution approach, the approach of doubling the ks at the edge
nodes, and the ks zoning of Fig. 2 result in an underestimation of
the peak positive bending moments by 38%, 29% and 16% on aver-
age and 71%, 59% and 31% maximum, respectively, while they
result in an overestimation of peak negative bending moments
by 72%, 49% and 44% on average and 106%, 69% and 71% maximum,
respectively. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that there are
cases in which all approaches perform well. The most striking
one is that of a mat loaded only by a central load (loading C9,
Fig. 18e), where the moment at the critical cross-section (point of
load application) turns to be practically independent of the
assumed Ks distribution (relative differences with respect to peak
moment do not exceed 6%). In addition, the differences among all
approaches appear comparatively small when the thickness H of
the deformable soil layer is small (Fig. 18f, H/B = 0.25).
Fig. 20 plots the vertical shear force Vx (per unit mat width)
along the mat central longitudinal axis (y = 0) for two examples
(centrally and eccentrically loaded mat). It can be observed that,
contrarily to the bending moments, the vertical shear forces seem
to be quite insensitive to the choice of the distribution of Winkler
spring constants. This can be explained by the fact that the values
of the extrema of the diagrams, which coincide with the points of
application of column loads, are predominantly and tightly con-
trolled by the values of the column loads according to static equi-
librium principles, given also the fact that the spring reactions of
the immediately underlying springs are comparatively small. The
relative differences in Vx between the analyses using different Ks
distributions become large near midspan cross-sections, which
are nevertheless non-critical with respect to shear or punching
failure.
8. Conclusions
Finite element analysis using three-dimensional continuum ele-
ments (cFEA) was used for establishing the appropriate values of
Winkler spring constants Ks for use in static analysis of rectangular
mat foundations using the pseudo-coupled approach. Based on the
FE results, equations approximating the spring constants spatial
distribution are proposed. According to the findings of the present
study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The cFEA back-calculated Ks values in the central 60% of the
mat are practically constant and equal approximately to
0.55 times the spring constant corresponding to a perfectly
rigid foundation Kr. Closer to the edges of the mat, Ks increases
sharply, attaining values that are roughly 1.5–3 times larger
than Kr, with the larger values being operative at the mat cor-
ners. The average value of Ks across the mat is very close to Kr.
(2) The form of the Ks distribution is rather insensitive to the
relative stiffness of the mat and the Poisson’s ratio of the
soil. The distribution of the column loads also appears to
have only a small effect on the shape of the Ks distribution,
provided that the mat loading does not induce significant
overall rotation of the mat (case of eccentric resultant of col-
umn vertical loads). If the column load resultant is eccentric,
the Ks distribution appears also rotated.
(3) The Boussinesq-theory-based iterative approach of Ulrich
[36] (discrete area method) yields Ks values and bending
moment diagrams that are close to those based on contin-
uum finite element analysis.
(4) The spring stiffness distributions commonly assumed in
practice, namely the uniform modulus of subgrade reaction
ks approach and the approach of doubling the ks at the edge
nodes, may lead to an underestimation of the peak positive
bending moments (bottom fiber in tension) of the order of
40% and 30%, respectively, and to an overestimation of peak
negative bending moments (top fiber in tension) of the order
of 70% and 50%, respectively.
(5) The shear force diagrams are largely unaffected by the
assumed spring stiffness distribution.
Finally, it must be stressed that the conclusions of this study
rely on the assumption that the soil is a linear elastic material.
Hence, the present findings should be further checked in the future
against results from analyses in which the soil is modeled as a non-
linear material. This is because the part of the foundation soil that
lies near the edges of the mat is subjected to more shearing than
soil near the mat center, where stress and deformation conditions
are more oedometric, leading to a redistribution of contact pres-
sures due the non-linear nature of the soil shearing behavior
[37,13]. The shear stresses close to the mat edges may be near or
at the shear failure envelope, even under serviceability loads in
the case of weak soils (e.g., loose sands, normally consolidated
clays), despite that the bearing pressures of mat foundations are
typically small, only about 12 kPa per supported storey [31], and
that the operative factor of safety (FS) against bearing capacity fail-
ure in the case of mat supported buildings is usually very large
(much larger than the requirement for FS = 2.0 or 3.0). Nonetheless,
in the case of soils with a strongly cohesive characters (clayey
soils), the ground tends to remain away from failure for a substan-
tial range of magnitude of superstructure loading. Trial cFEA anal-
yses of a rectangular mat on soil modeled as an elastic-perfectly
plastic material following the Tresca failure criterion (e.g., clay
under undrained conditions) using Plaxis 3D show that, while
the soil near the mat corners starts entering yield state when the
operative FS values become smaller than 7.5, the operative FS
needs to become less than 4.0 for the soil along the mat edges to
commence yielding. In the case of cohesionless soils (sand and
gravers) or slightly cohesive soils, the soil along the perimeter of
the mat is expected to be at yield state for markedly smaller load-
ing magnitudes. Viladkar et al. [38] performed cFEA of a soil-mat-
structure interaction problem considering a hyperbolic (non-
linear) stress-strain law for cohesive soil. It was observed that
the inclusion of the soil non-linearity in the problem solution
resulted in only ±6% change in the maximum bending moments
compared to a purely linear elastic solution. Thus, the use of the
proposed equations is likely more reliable for the case of cohesive
soils than cohesionless soils.
References
[1] ABAQUS. Analysis user’s manual, Simulia, Dassault systems; 2011.
[2] ACI Committee 336. Suggested analysis and design procedures for combined
footings and mats (ACI 336.2R-88). American Concrete Institute (ACI); 1988. p.
336.2R-1-336.2R-21.
[3] Banavalkar PV, Ulrich Jr., EJ. Structural and geotechnical features of
Republicbank center. In: Proceedings, council on tall buildings and urban
habitat, Singapore; 1984. p. 363–70.
[4] Basile F. Non-linear analysis of vertically loaded piled rafts. Comput Geotech
2015;63:73–82.
[5] Belytschko T, Tsay CS, Liu WK. A stabilization matrix for the bilinear Mindlin
plate element. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1981;29:313–27.
[6] Boussinesq J. Application des potentiels a l’équilibre et du mouvement des
solides élastiques. Gauthier-Villars; 1885.
[7] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill; 1996.
[8] Coduto DP. Foundation design – principles and practices. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall;
2001.
 D. Loukidis, G.-P. Tamiolakis / Engineering Structures 153 (2017) 443–459
[9] Colasanti RJ, Horvath JS. Practical subgrade model for improved soil-structure
interaction analysis: software implementation. Pract Period Struct Des Constr
2010;15(4):278–86.
[10] Horvath JS, Colasanti RJ. Practical subgrade model for improved soil-structure
interaction analysis: model development. Int J Geomech 2011;11(1):59–64.
[11] Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME, Witt RJ. Concepts and applications of finite
element analysis. Wiley; 2001.
[12] Chow YK. Vertical deformation of rigid foundations of arbitrary shape on
layered soil media. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Method. Geomech. 1987;11(1):1–15.
[13] Edgers L, Saayei M, Alonge JL. Modeling the effects of soil-structure interaction
on a tall building bearing on a mat foundation. Civil Eng Pract 2005:51.
[14] Fraser RA, Wardle LJ. Numerical analysis of rectangular rafts on layered
foundations. Géotechnique 1976;26(4):613–30.
[15] Holtz RD. Stress distribution and settlement of shallow foundations. In: Fand
H-Y, editor. Foundation engineering handbook. Springer; 1991. p. 166–222.
[16] Horvath JS. New subgrade model applied to mat foundations. J Geotech Eng
1983;109(12):1567–87.
[17] Horvath JS. Subgrade models for soil-structure interaction analysis. In:
Foundation engineering: current principles and practices. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers; 1989. p. 599–612.
[18] Horvath JS. Subgrade modeling for mat foundations: a review and critique of
analytical methods. Special Publication SP-152, ACI; 1995. p. 117–60.
[19] Horvath JS. Soil-structure interaction research project – basic ssi concepts and
applications overview. Report no CGT-2002-2, Center for Geotechnology,
Manhattan College; 2002.
[20] Horvilleur JF, Patel VB. Mat foundation design - a soil-structure interaction
problem. In: Ulrich EJ, editor. Design and performance of mat foundations;
state-of-the-art review. Detroit: ACI; 1995. p. 51–94.
[21] Hughes TJR. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite
element analysis. Dover Publications; 2000.
[22] Jeong S, Cho J. Proposed nonlinear 3-D analytical method for piled raft
foundations. Comput Geotech 2014;59:112–26.
[23] Kerr AD. A study of a new foundation model. Acta Mech 1965;1:135–47.
[24] Kerr AD, Rhines WJ. A further study of elastic foundation models. Report no S-
67-1. New York University, Bronx, USA; 1967.
[25] Levinson M, Bharatha S. Elastic foundation models—a new approach. In: Proc
4th symposium on eng appl solid mech; 1978.
459
[26] Liao SSC. Estimating the coefficient of subgrade reaction for plain strain
condition. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Geotech Eng 1995;113(3):166–81.
[27] Matlab. User’s guide, mathworks; 2012.
[28] Meyerhof GG. Some recent foundation research and its application to design.
Struct Eng 1953;31(6):151–67.
[29] Newmark NM. Simplified computation of vertical pressures in elastic
foundations. Engineering Experiment Station. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign; 1935.
[30] Roy R, Dutta SC. Differential settlement among isolated footings of buildings
frames: the problem, its estimation and possible measures. Int J Appl Mech
Eng 2001;6(1):165–86.
[31] Salgado R. The engineering of foundations. International ed. McGraw-Hill;
2008.
[32] Savaris G, Hallak PH, Maia PCA. Influence of foundation settlements in load
redistribution on columns in a monitoring construction-Case Study. Rev
IBRACON Estrut Mater 2010;3(3):346–56.
[33] Steinbrenner W. Tafeln zur Setzungsberechnung. Die Strasse 1934;1:121–4.
[34] Tamiolakis G-P. Study of the spatial distribution of the Winkler spring stiffness
for the static analysis of mat foundations MSc Thesis. Nicosia
(Cyprus): University of Cyprus; 2012 [in Greek].
[35] Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity. McGraw Hill International
Book; 1982.
[36] Ulrich Jr EJ. Subgrade reaction in mat foundation design. Concr Int 1991;13
(4):41–50.
[37] Viladkar MN, Godbole PN, Noorzaei J. Soil-structure interaction in plane
frames using coupled finite-infinite elements. Comput Struct 1991;39
(5):535–46.
[38] Viladkar MN, Noorzaei J, Godbole PN. Interactive analysis of a space frame-
raft-soil system considering soil nonlinearity. Comput Struct 1994;51
(4):343–56.
[39] Westergaard HM. A problem of elasticity suggested by a problem in soil
mechanics: soft material reinforced by numerous strong horizontal sheets. In:
Contributions to the mechanics of solids, Stephen Timoshenko 60th
anniversary volume. New York: MacMillan; 1938. p. 260–77.
[40] Winkler E. Die Lehre von Elastizität und Festigkeit. Prague: H. Dominicus;
1867.