See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319472037

AN ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINATION OF FOUNDATION RIGIDITY

Article · December 1998

CITATIONS READS

2 2,239

1 author:

M. El Gendy
Port Said University
90 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Comparative Studies for Piled Raft Resting on Port Said Clay View project

Behavior of cylindrical tanks resting on Port Said soil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. El Gendy on 04 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Eighth International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering
15-17 December, 1998. Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

AN ANALYSIS FOR DETERMINATION OF FOUNDATION RIGIDITY

M. EL GENDY *

ABSTRACT

The conventional formulae used to determine the foundation rigidity treat the foundation as a plate or a
beam in regular shape with constant thickness subjected to a simple load geometry on elastic subsoil
model. In this case, the properties of the subsoil are modeled by the soil modulus Es only for isotropic
elastic half space model or one layer model. Therefore, the application of these formulae is limited to
certain types of problems.

In this study, an analysis is proposed to determine the system rigidity of any foundation on irregular
subsoil model. The analysis deals with each foundation as independent problem, where two solutions
are presented for the foundation, full flexible and full rigid, besides the elastic solution. Through those
solutions, the rigidity of foundation for any practical problem on a real subsoil model can be obtained
to a high grade of accuracy.

Keywords: foundation rigidity; elastic foundation; rigid foundation; flexible foundation.

____________________________________
*) Assistant Professor, Suez canal University, Faculty of Engineering, Port Said, Egypt.
 INTRODUCTION

The oldest work for the analysis of foundation rigidity is that of Borowicka (1939). He analyzed the
problem of distribution of contact stress under uniformly loaded strip and circular rigid foundation
resting on a semi-infinite elastic mass. The analysis showed that the distribution of contact stress
which is dependent on the relative stiffness of the soil-foundation system, kB, is defined by:

1  1   s2   Eb   d 
3

k B =       (1)
6  1   b2   Es   b 

where vb and vs are Poisson=s ratios for foundation material and soil, respectively; Eb and Es are
Young=s modulus of foundation material and soil, respectively; b is half-width for the strip foundation
or radius for the circular foundation and d is the thickness of foundation. In which, kB = 0 indicates a
perfectly flexible foundation, and kB = means a perfectly rigid foundation.
After Borowicka=s analysis, many authors had introduced formulae to determine the foundation
rigidity for plates resting on different types of subsoil models. For examples, Gorbunov/ Posadov
(1959) for an elastic solid medium, Cheung/ Zienkiewicz (1965) for Winkler springs and isotropic
elastic half space model and Vlazov/ Leontiv (1966) for a two-parameter elastic medium. A good
review for those formulae may be found in Selvadurai (1979).

Lately, on the basis of great number of comparative computations for the modulus of compressibility
model , Graßhoff (1987) proposed various degrees of system rigidity between foundation and the soil
until case of practical rigidity, using Eq. (2) which still uses in many national standard specifications
such as German standard (DIN 4018) and Egyptian code (ECP 196-1995).
3
Eb  d 
k st =   (2)
Es  l 

where Eb and Es are Young=s modulus of foundation material and soil, respectively; d foundation
thickness and l foundation length. In which, kst 2 indicates very rigid foundation, kst 0.005 indicates
flexible foundation and 0.005 < kst > 2 indicates semi rigid foundation according to the Egyptian code.
While, kst = 1 indicates rigid foundation, kst = 0.1 indicates stiff foundation and kst = 0.01 indicates
flexible foundation according to Graßhoff (1987).

It had been noticed that most of the available formulae used to determine the foundation rigidity
assume that the footings or rafts are of regular shape, supporting a simple load geometry, resting on
an isotropic elastic half space soil model or a homogenous soil layer model. This means that the
practical application of those formulae is limited to certain type of problems. Figure (1) shows some
practical problems where the analysis of foundation rigidity may not be facilitated by the use of
traditional formulae. Furthermore, the use of traditional formulae may be not accepted if non linear
analysis of the soil is considered, or if an external influences such as the effect of tunneling,
neighboring foundations are expected.
It was found that, the foundation rigidity depends on the depth of the soil layers and its elastic
properties, the size of foundation, foundation thickness as well as the distribution of loading. For this
reason a more accurate analytical analysis is proposed to obtain the rigidity of the foundation
considering all the above factors.
 Soil layer 1

Soil layer 2

Soil layer 3

a) Foundation on irregular subsoil b) Grid foundation or foundation with opening

c) Foundation with variable thickness d) Foundation stiffened by girders

Fig. (1) Some practical examples where traditional formulae may not be applicable

DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS

Today, The finite element method is the most powerful procedure. It can be applied to nearly all
engineering problems. In spite of the successful using of the finite element method in the analysis of
the slab foundation, it may cause numerical problems during the solution of the system of linear
equations if the slab foundation is rigid enough. It can be drawn in this problem is that, the slab
foundation (if is sufficiently thick) will be far stiffer than the soil, and hence, the displacements
beneath the slab will more or less be the same at all points. In this case, it is reasonable to assume that
the slab is perfectly rigid. Accordingly, the two solutions, full flexible and full rigid, besides the elastic
solution by finite element method are used to estimate the foundation rigidity or the rigid thickness of
the slab.

Flexible solution

If the foundation is perfectly flexible (such as an embankment), then the contact stress will be equal to
the gravity stress exerted by the foundation on the underlying soil. For the set of grid points of the
foundation, the soil settlements are:

s  [c]Q (3)

where {s} is the vector of soil settlements, [c] is the flexibility matrix of the soil and {Q} is the vector
of contact forces.
Elastic solution

By the elastic solution the compatibility of deformations between the slab and the soil medium will be
considered. In this case, the soil settlement s equal to the slab deflection w. The stiffness matrix of the
whole foundation system is the sum of the slab stiffness matrix [kp] and the soil stiffness [ks]=[c]-1. The
equilibrium of the slab-soil system is expressed by the following matrix equation:

[k p ] + [k s] = P (4)

where {P} is the vector of the known applied loads and moments on the slab and {δ} is the nodal
displacements vector of the slab. Each nodal displacement constitutes the slab deflection w and the two
rotations θx and θy about x and y axes, respectively.

Rigid solution

If the slab is completely rigid, one of the two configurations for foundation settlement is expected:
a) If there are no moments (Mx and My) caused by load eccentricity, all points on the slab will go down
the same amount wo.
b) If there are moments, the slab will rotate as a rigid body and there will be differential vertical
movement between points on the slab, but all points will remain in the same plane.
For a completely unsymmetric external loading, the unknowns of the interaction problem are the n
unknown contact pressure quantities qi, the rigid body translation of the slab wo, and the rigid body
rotations θx and θy of the slab about the axes of geometry centroid. These are determined by
considering the n compatibility equations of rigid slab deflection and the displacement of subsoil at the
n nodal points and the three equations of overall equilibrium through the following equation:

N = X k s X T  (5)

where: {N} is the vector of the resultant forces and moments on the slab; [X] is the coordinate matrix
and {Δ} is the vector of rigid body displacement wo and the rigid body rotations θx and θy of the slab.

Determination of foundation rigidity

Now, the main cofactor in Eqs. (3), (4) and (5) is the displacement w which in this case equal to the soil
settlement s. Therefore, the definition of the rigid body movement is used in this study to determine the
rigid thickness of the slab. In fact, if the slab is completely rigid, it will rotate as rigid body and there
will be differential vertical movement between points on the slab but all points will remain in the same
plane. Therefore, Eq. (5) gives easily the plan of translation which can be defined only by three points.
Consequently, the elastic settlements (=slab deformations) of any three points on the slab can define
the whole slab configuration if compared with those of rigid translations at the same three points.
Now, the parameter kr in percentage at any three selected points at least on the slab can be used to
represent the foundation rigidity. This parameter is a function of the elastic settlement s and the rigid
body translation w as given below:

  si 
k r =  1 -   100 [%] (6)
 wi 

where si is the settlement at point i, wi is the rigid body translation at point i and Δsi is the absolute
difference between si and wi at that point.
The slab may be considered practically as rigid at a thickness (or system rigidity) gives kr over 90% for
the three selected points on the slab.

NUMERICAL RESULTS

Verification of the mathematical model

The present study was made by using a computer program under Windows 95/NT, ELPLA-W (1998),
which was developed by the author. The program is capable to analyze foundations by different
subsoil models. A good advantage of this program is the capability to handle the three solutions of
flexible, elastic and rigid foundations. Besides, the mesh of the rigid and flexible foundations can be
constructed to be analogous to the finite elements mesh of the elastic foundation. So, the three
solutions can be compared easily and correctly.
This paragraph presents a verification of the mathematical models used in program ELPLA-W (1998),
by comparing the ELPLA-W results with other published results. The verification cases discussed in
this paragraph cover the three types of foundations, flexible, elastic and rigid.

Verification of flexible and rigid foundations

The definition of the characteristic point so according to Graßhoff (1955) can be used to verify the
mathematical model of this study for rigid and flexible foundations. The characteristic point is defined
as that point of a surface area loaded by a uniformly distributed pressure, where the settlement so due to
that pressure is identical with the displacement wo of rigid foundation of the same shape and loading.
For a rectangular foundation, the characteristic point takes the coordinates a c =0.87A and bc = 0.87B,
where A and B are the foundation dimensions.

Figure (2) shows the test foundation of dimensions 8 m * 12 m, resting on three different soil layers of
thicknesses 7 m, 5 m and 6 m, respectively. The Young's modulus of the soil materials are E s = 8000
kN/m2, Es = 100000 kN/m2 and Es = 12000 kN/m2 for the three layers, respectively. Poisson's ratio vs=
0 for the three layers. The foundation is subjected to uniform load of 130 KN/m2.

The foundation area is divided into 12*16 elements as shown in Fig. (2). Then, the problem is carried
out first for flexible solution using Eq. (3). Equation (4) can also be used in this problem to simulate
the flexible foundation by assuming very small slab rigidity tends to zero which gives the same results.
If the foundation is subjected to concentrated loads, Eq. (3) may not nable to determine the vertical
stress at a point below the concentrated load.

For a rigid slab foundation without eccentricity such as the tested slab, it can be concluded that all
points on the slab will settle the same amount wo. The settlement so may be obtained using Kany's chart
(1997) for calculating the settlement under the characteristic point of a rectangular foundation.
Table (1) compares the settlement at characteristic point so = wo obtained by using Kany's chart (1997)
with the settlements of flexible and rigid foundations obtained by this study.
 Fig. (2) Foundation dimensions, loads and subsoil

Table (1) Settlement so = wo [cm] obtained by using Kany's chart and the present study

Item Kany's chart so = wo Flexible foundation Rigid foundation wo

so
Settlement [cm] 7.37 7.27 7.3

Difference % 0 1.36 0.95

Figure (3) shows the settlements at the section a-a through the characteristic point o for flexible and
rigid foundations. It can be clearly observed that the settlement so for flexible foundation is identical to
the vertical displacement wo of rigid foundation at point o according to the assumption of Graßhoff
(1955).

X [m]
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
0.00

2.00 Displacement of rigid foundation

Settlement of flexible foundation

4.00

Characteristic point o
6.00

8.00

10.00

Fig. (3) Settlement at section a-a

Verification of elastic foundation

To verify the mathematical model of this study for elastic foundation, the results of an elastic
foundation at different relative stiffness obtained by other analytical solutions from Stark/ Majer
(1988) and Borowicka (1939), are compared to those obtained by the present analysis.

A rectangular slab with dimensions 12 m * 6 m, resting on an isotropic elastic half space model is
chosen and subdivided into 12 * 12 elements as shown in Fig. (4). The elastic properties of the slab and
the soil are Es = 10000 kN/m2, Ep = 2.6 *107 kN/m2, vs= 0, vp= 0.15. The slab is subjected to uniform
load of 100 kN/m2. Figures (5), (6) and (7) show the comparison of the results at the middle section a-a
of the slab obtained by the present study with stark/ Majer (1988) and Borowicka=s solutions for
several values of relative stiffness kB defined in Eq. (1), Equation (1) was evaluated for kB = π/30,
π/10 and π/3.
 a

p =100 kN/m2

a
12*1 = 12 m
Fig. (4) Slab geometry, loading and finite elements

X [m]
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
0

60

120

180
Stark/Majer (1988)
240 Borowicka (1939)
Present study
300
Fig. (5) Contact pressure distribution at section a-a, kB = π/30, d = 18.5 cm
X [m]
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
0

60

120

180
Stark/Majer (1988)
240 Borowicka (1939)
Present study
300
Fig. (6) Contact pressure distribution at section a-a, kB = π/10, d = 26.7 cm
 X [m]
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
0

60

120

180
Stark/Majer (1988)
240 Borowicka (1939)
Present study
300
Fig. (7) Contact pressure distribution at section a-a, kB = π/3, d = 40 cm
It can be shown from the above test examples that, the ELPLA-W results are very similar to those
given by Kany=s chart (1997), Stark/ Majer (1988), Graßhoff (1955) and Borowicka (1939), for the
three solutions flexible, elastic and rigid foundations.

Case study I: Simple square slab foundation

For judgment on the proposed analysis and as no solutions are yet available for comparison with
complex foundation rigidity problems, consider the simple example of slab foundation shown in Fig.
(8). The slab has dimensions 12 m * 12 m and is subjected to an equally four symmetrically placed
localized loads, each of P = 9000 kN. The slab resting on a homogenous soil layer of thickness 20 m.
The Young=s modulus of the slab and soil materials are Eb = 2 *107 kN/m2 and Es = 10000 kN/m2,
respectively. Poisson's ratio of the slab material is vb= 0.15.

Fig. (8) Slab dimensions, loads and subsoil

Deninger (1964) studied the same example using the finite difference method by dividing the slab into
6 * 6 elements, each element had dimensions of 2 m * 2 m. He examined the slab thickness for several
values of 0.4 m, 0.5 m, 0.6 m, 0.8 m and 2 m.
The moment at any point on the slab foundation depends on the system rigidity of the foundation,
external load values and load distributions. So, the moment mx at the position of the concentrated load,
independently of rigidity formulae, can be used to determine the rigid thickness of the slab in this
example. In this case, the slab may be considered to be rigid at a thickness giving moment m x over 90
% of the maximum moment that can occur at that point.
The slab in this example was considered to be rigid for thickness over 0.85 m according to Deninger=s
analysis. An application for the available Eq. (2) for this example gives a system rigidity value about
kst = 0.71, which considers the slab is very stiff according to the degree of system rigidity after
Graßhoff (1987).

Now, series of computations using the finite element method for several values of slab thickness are
carried out. The moments and the settlements at some selected points are plotted against the slab
thickness to describe the foundation rigidity.
The slab is subdivided first into 24 * 24 square elements, each element has dimensions of 0.5 m * 0.5
m, then into 12 * 12 square elements, each element has dimensions of 1 m * 1 m as shown in Fig. (9).
Taking advantage of the symmetry in shape, soil and load geometry about x- and y-axes, the analysis is
carried out only for a quarter of the slab foundation.

(a) (b)
24 * 0.5 = 12 [m] 12 * 1 = 12 [m]
Fig. (9) Finite element mesh of the slab

To show the convergence of the solution by finite element method for verification of the rigid
thickness of the slab, the settlement values s at four characteristic points a, b, c and d of the slab
foundation and the rigid body translation wo when the slab is perfectly rigid, are plotted against the slab
thickness in Fig. (10) and (11). In which
Point (a) : the corner point of the slab.
Point (b) : the middle point of the slab edge.
Point (c) : the point under the load position.
Point (d) : the center point of the slab.
 Slab thickness d [m]
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
0

40

80 Point a
Point b
Point c
120 Point d
wo

160
Fig. (10) Settlement at the four characteristic points using mesh of 24 *24 elements
Slab thickness d [m]
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
0

40

80 Point a
Point b
Point c
120 Point d
wo

160
Fig. (11) Settlement at the four characteristic points using mesh of 12 *12 elements

Figures (12) shows the moment mx at point c under the concentrated load position using finite element
mesh of 24 * 24 elements and 12 * 12 m elements, respectively.
 Slab thickness d [m]
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
0

1000

2000 93 %
100 % = max. m x

3000

4000
12 * 12 elements
24 * 24 elements
5000
Fig. (12) Moment mx at characteristic point c

Figure (10) indicates that, the solution after the slab thickness far 0.8 m becomes divergence, if a fine
mesh of 24 * 24 elements is used. In which no stability in the overall matrix is occurred. As a result, if
the foundation is rigid enough, the slab rotations will tend to zero and the slab will go down the same
amount of displacement wo. This cause the number of equations to be greater than the number of
unknowns. Another problem may be found that, there is a limitation between the plate element
thickness and element size at each rigidity for finite element model using plate bending elements.

Figure (12) shows that, the Deninger=s analysis cannot be used, in case of using a fine mesh of 24 * 24
elements, to fined the rigid thickness of slab where the position of maximum moment at point c is not
clear in the figure. Furthermore, for slab with complex load geometry or types, it is not practical to use
this analysis which represents the rigidity of the foundation only at the selected point.
Figure (11) shows that, using a mesh of 12 * 12 elements gives good results. A comparison between
Fig. (10) and (11), indicates that, although the divergence of the solution by using a fine mesh of 12 *
12 elements, the rigid thickness of the slab can be determined because the limit of rigid translation is
known from the rigid solution.
Figure (13) shows the parameter kr for the four characteristic points a, b, c and d of the slab foundation.
Figure (14) shows the parameter kr for the same characteristic points if the external concentrated loads
on the slab are replaced by a uniform load of 250 kN/m2, equal to the average contact pressure, using
also mesh of 12 * 12 elements.
 Slab thickness d [m]
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
-300
Point a
Point b
-200 Point c
Point d
kr = 90%
-100

100

Fig. (13) Parameter kr for the characteristic points (slab is subjected to concentrated loads)

Slab thickness d [m]

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.0
-300
Point a
Point b
-200
Point c
Point d
kr = 90%
-100

100

Fig. (14) Parameter kr for the characteristic points (slab is subjected to uniform load)
The slab may be considered as rigid at thickness gives kr over 90 % for all characteristic points.
From Fig. (13), the slab is considered to be rigid for thickness over 0.80 m which gives m x equal to 93
% from maximum moment at point c. This thickness is different from that of Deninger (1964) by 5.6 %
and makes the slab very stiff according to Grahßoff (1987).
Figure (14) shows that, the slab is considered to be rigid for thickness over 0.7 m when the slab is
subjected to uniform load of 250 kN/m2 according to this analysis. This means that the type of loading
has influence on the slab rigidity.
Although the solution in this example is reported for square slab foundation, the approach can also be
considered applicable for general problems.

Case Study II: Slab foundation of irregular shape on irregular subsoil

A general numerical example was carried out to show the applicability of the proposed analysis to
determine the rigid thickness of slabs of any shape considering re-entrant corner and opening within
the slabs.
In one case the slab is subjected to many types of external loads; concentrated loads, uniformly
distributed load, line load and moments in x-and y-direction as shown in Fig. 15. The slab material is
supposed to have the following parameters; Young's modulus Eb = 2 * 107 kN/m2 , Poisson's ratio vb =
0.25. The level of foundation is df = 2.7 m.

1254
1565
1538
1368
2150
1350
89
750
500
120 1600
800
1560
1265 350

Fig. (15) Slab dimensions, loads

The subsoil under the slab is characterized by three borings; each has three layers with different
materials, The modulii of compressibility of the three layers for loading are Es1 = 9500 kN/m2, Es2 =
22000 kN/m2 and Es3 = 120000 kN/m2 while for reloading Ws1 = 26000 kN/m2, Ws2 = 52000 kN/m2
and Ws3 = 220000 kN/m2, Poisson's ratio is assumed to be 0.3 and constant for all the soil materials.
The effect of reloading and water pressure is taken into account. Boring logs and locations are shown
in Fig. 16.
The available solution from Kany/ El Gendy (1995) for the analysis of slab foundations on three
dimensional subsoil model using interpolation method, is used here in the analysis of this general
example.

Four points on the slab are chosen to estimate the parameter kr which represent the whole foundation
rigidity as shown in Fig. (16-a), Fig (17) shows the parameter kr for these points. It can be seen that, the
slab is considered to be rigid for a thickness over 1.01 m.
 c d

B3 (10.00, 11.00)
B2 (1.00, 9.00)

B1 (4.00, 3.00)

a) Boring locations and interpolation zones

Legend
00.00
Silt
GW=1.50 E s = 9500 kN/m 2
W s = 26000 kN/m2
 s=19 kN/m3
3.80
Fine sand
E s = 22000 kN/m2
W s = 52000 kN/m2

Gravel
8.20 E s = 120000 kN/m2
W s = 220000 kN/m2
10.00

12.70

14.10

18.20

20.00 20.00 20.00

b) Boring 1 c) Boring 2 d) Boring 3

Fig. (16) Location of borings and soil layers

 Slab thickness d [m]
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
-150
Point a
-100 Point b
Point c
-50 Point d
kr = 90%
0

50

100

150

Fig. (17) Parameter kr for the characteristic points a, b, c and d

Another parameter k=r is obtained from the contact pressure shape, similar to kr for the same points is
plotted in Fig. (18). Although Fig. (18) gives a rigid thickness over 1.05 m nearly as the same as that of
Fig. (17), but it is recommend to use kr in which the rigid movement plane can be described only by
three points.

Slab thickness d [m]

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
-150
Point a
-100 Point b
Point c
-50 Point d
k’r = 90%
0

50

100

150

Fig. (18) Parameter k=r for the characteristic points a, b, c and d

To check the validity of the present analysis for this example, the moments mx and my at point b are
plotted against slab thickness in Fig. (19). The moments at a slab thickness of 1.01 m are compared to
the maximum moments that may occur at that point. It was found that, both moments mx and my check
closely, where the value of mx is found to be 92% from maximum mx while the value of my is equal to
95% at same point.
Note, if the slab has a variable thickness, the rigidity of the foundation may be determined through
plotting the parameter kr against Young=s modulus of elasticity of the slab material Eb at several values
of Eb.
Slab thickness d [m]
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
0
mx
my
1000
95 % mx 100 % = max. mx
2000

3000 92 % my
100 % = max. my

4000

5000
Fig. (19) Moment mx and my at characteristic point b

CONCLUSIONS

An analysis has been introduced for the determination of the foundation rigidity. This proposed
analysis offers the possibility to determine the rigidity of slabs having any shape considering holes,
re-enter corners, variable thickness with different loading types and geometry and resting on irregular
subsoil layers. The analysis deals with each foundation as an independent problem, in which two
solutions are made, full flexible and full rigid. Besides, the elastic solution. Through those solutions
the rigidity, of foundation for any practical problem on a real subsoil model can be could obtained to a
great extend of accuracy.

REFERENCES

Borowicka, H. (1939), ADruckverteilung unter elastischen Platten@, Ingenieur-Archiv, Band 10, S. 113
bis 125.
Cheung, Y./ Zienkiewicz, O. (1965), APlates and Tanks on Elastic Foundations-an Application of
Finite Element Method@, International Journal of Solids Structures Vol. 1, pp. 451 to 461, Pergamon.
Selvadurai, A. (1979), AElastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction@, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Amsterdam-Oxford-New York.
DIN 4018 (1981), ABerechnung der Sohldruckverteilung unter Fl‫ن‬chengründungen (mit Beiblatt 1:
Erl‫ن‬uterungen und Berechnungsbeispiele)@, DIN-Normen, Deutschland.
ECP 196 (1995), AEgyptian Code for Soil Mechanics-Design and Construction of Foundations@, Part 3,
Shallow Foundations (in Arabic).
Graßhoff, H. (1987), ASystemsteifigkeit und Fl‫ن‬chengründung@, Ber. Nr. 6, Lehrgebiet Grundbau,
Bodenmechanik und Unterird. Bauen, Berg. Universit‫ن‬t GH Wuppertal.
Kany, M./ El Gendy, M. (1998), ABenutzerhandbuch für das Programm ELPLA-W (einge bunden in
das Programmsystem GEOTEC)@, Zirndorf.
Graßhoff, H. (1955) , ASetzungsberechnungen starrer Fundamente mit Hilfe des kennzeichnenden
 Punktes@, Der Bauingenieur, S. 53 bis 54.
Graßohff, H./ Kany, M. (1997), AGrundbau-Taschenbuch@ Teil 3, 5. Auflage, Verlag Wilhem
Ernst&Sohn, Berlin, München.
Stark, R./ Majer, J. (1988), ASoil-Structure Interaction - A possibility for Elastic-Plastic Calculation of
Foundation Slabs@, Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, volume 2, pp. 1135 to 1141, Innsbruck.
Deninger, A. (1964), AEin Verfahren zur Berechnung biegsamer und durch Wandscheiben
ausgesteifter rechteckiger Gründungsplatten@, Dissertation, Karlsruhe.
Kany, M. / El Gendy, M. (1995), AComputing of beam and slab foundations on three dimensional
layered model@, Proceeding of the Sixth International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering, Berlin.

View publication stats