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

net/publication/235992620

The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms

of FEM

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 956

1 author:

Krzysztof Sternik
Silesian University of Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Application of Hill's stability criterion to detection of diffuse (non-localized) failure in geotechnical problems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Krzysztof Sternik on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

No. 13 2010

Krzysztof STERNIK*
Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Silesian University of Technology, ul. Akademicka 5, Gliwice, Poland

THE ANALYSIS OF STRESSES AND DISPLACEMENTS

BENEATH STRIP FOUNDATIONS IN TERMS OF FEM

Received: 23 January 2009

Accepted: 23 November 2010

Soil is a material dependent on the load history. The load history has a significant
influence on stress distribution in the ground beneath the footing and the settlement of a
foundation. In the paper the load history has been considered as the sequence of loading
the ground with two strip footings. Differences in the distributions of stresses in the
ground as well as the settlements of footings have been shown. Nonlinear load-
settlement relationship does not allow the application of the principle of superposition.

Keywords: soil-structure interaction, FEM analysis, soil plasticity

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to commonly occurring irreversible deformations, soils are

considered to be materials dependent on the load history. The superposition rule
cannot be applied for predicting stress and strain fields in the foundation ground.
This means that the influence of sequence of loads applied on the elasto-plastic
ground can be investigated only numerically.
In engineering practice it is often necessary to build in the vicinity of
already existing structures. Settlement prediction of a new structure is an integral
part of the design procedure. Displacements of newly constructed foundations
are significantly dependent on existing stress distribution and stress history in

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-32-237 2823; fax: +48-32-237 2873.
E-mail address: Krzysztof.Sternik@polsl.pl (K.Sternik)

© Publishing House of Poznan University of Technology, Poznań 2010

ISSN 1642-9303
 2 Krzysztof Sternik

the ground. Moreover, an increase in the stresses caused by new structures

increases the settlement of the existing foundations.
The aim of the paper is to compare the distributions of stresses in the
ground and settlement of rigid strip foundations, depending on the load history.
The load history is the appearance of loaded foundations. Different distances
between footings have been considered. To describe the irreversible behavior of
the foundation ground a simple elastic – perfectly plastic model has been taken
into account.

2. ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSES

2.1. Geometry
The strip foundations are assumed to be rigid. Their width is B=1.2 m and
the height 0.5 m. The contact between the foundations and the ground has been
assumed to be rough, i.e. no interface elements have been applied. The boundary
value problem solved by finite element method has been modeled in plain strain
conditions.
The foundations rest on the ground surface with no surcharge. Three
distances between foundations have been considered: 2B = 2.4 m, 3B = 3.6 m
and 5B = 6.0 m. The models under considerations are depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Three geometrical models considered in FEM computations

 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 3

2.2. Material models

The ground has been assumed as homogeneous zone treated as an elastic –
perfectly plastic material with Drucker-Prager failure criterion characterized by
the parameters:
Young modulus E = 90 MPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3, cohesion c = 1 kPa,
friction angle φ = 33º.
These values correspond to medium dense sand at density index ID = 0.55.
The plastic flow rule has been taken as non-associated with dilatancy
angle ψ=0 which corresponds to the assumption of incompressibility during
plastic flow. The coefficient of earth pressure at rest has been assumed K0 = 0.45.
The foundations are described by elastic material with Young modulus
E = 30.5 GPa and Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.167.

2.3. Finite element model

The interaction between the foundations and the ground has been modeled
in the finite element program (Z_Soil). The models consist of 5716 degrees of
freedom. Since the only difference between three cases is the distance between
foundations, FE meshes are very similar, so in Fig. 2 only one case is presented.

Y
X

Fig. 2. Exemplary FE model: distance between foundations 5B = 6.0 m

3. DETERMINATION OF THE LIMIT LOAD

The analyses have been performed in several stages. As usual in the case
of a nonlinear boundary value problem, computations have been carried out in
an incremental manner. Firstly, before loading the foundations initial stresses
have been generated in the material zone representing the ground. Then load was
 4 Krzysztof Sternik

subsequently applied on each footing. Incremental application of load stopped at

the maximum value that could be transferred onto the ground (divergence of
computations).
In the first analysis the limit load of a single foundation was determined.
In the considered case this value is 371.6 kPa. At this load the divergence of
computations occurred and the settlement amounted to 36 mm. The relationship
between settlement and loading is presented in Fig. 3. This is not within the
scope of this paper to prove whether the obtained value of load is the actual limit
load. This question has been referred to in many publications, e.g. [1], [4], [5],
[11].
load [kPa]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0,000

0,005

0,010
settlement [m]

0,015

0,020

0,025

0,030

0,035

0,040

Fig. 3. Load – settlement curve determined for a single foundation

Direction and magnitude of displacements at failure can be illustrated by

displacement vectors generated after the application of the last increment of load
(Fig. 4). This failure pattern is well known from experiments (e.g. [1], [5]).

Fig. 4. Vectors of incremental displacements at failure

 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 5

In order to avoid problems during calculations due to approaching the

state of global limit, load of both foundations in further analyses was assumed
equal to 340 kPa. Hereafter this value will be referred to as the limit load.

3. STRESSES IN THE GROUND

The discrepancy between theoretical stress distribution and measured

stresses has been proved by Rabotnikov and Łazebnik ([11]). Rabotnikov
performed an experimental study in which he measured the variation of vertical
stress values along the axis of symmetry of a rigid footing. Both values and the
shape of the vertical stress distribution determined on the basis of elasticity
theory differ from the experimental results. The difference increases with the
increasing load level. It is worth noting that at a certain level of load the vertical
stress beneath the footing increases with depth and starts to decrease after
reaching a maximum value at a certain depth. This fact contradicts the theory of
elasticity that predicts monotonic decrease of vertical stress below the footing.
To present stress distributions a relative depth has been introduced defined as a
depth beneath a footing h referred to the footing breadth B.
a) load = 200 kPa b) load = 300 kPa c) load = 500 kPa

vertical stress [kPa] vertical stress [kPa] vertical stress [kPa]

100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0.25 0.25 0.25

0.5 0.5 0.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

relative depth h/B

relative depth h/B

relative depth h/B

2.0 2.0 2.0

3.0 3.0 3.0

4.0 4.0 4.0

5.0 5.0 5.0

6.0 6.0 6.0

foundation width B = 0.4 m

elasticity theory measured stresses

Fig. 5. Comparison of vertical stress distribution as a result of the elasticity theory and
the experiment by Rabotnikov
 6 Krzysztof Sternik

Results quoted in Fig. 5 obtained by Rabotnikov show good qualitative

agreement with theoretical elasto-plastic results presented in Fig. 6. The
distribution of vertical (Fig. 6) and horizontal (Fig. 7) stresses during loading of
the first foundation are depicted on the following stages of loading: 10% - 34
kPa, 25% - 85 kPa, and 50% - 170 kPa.

vertical stress σyy [kPa]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0

0,2
relative depth h/B

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,2

10% of limit loading 25% of limit loading 50% of limit loading 100% of loading

Fig. 6. Changes of the vertical stress distribution with the increasing load beneath the
center of a rigid strip footing

horizontal stress σxx [kPa]

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0

0,2
relative depth h/B

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,2
10% of limit loading 25% of limit loading 50% of limit loading 100% of loading

Fig. 7. Changes of the horizontal stress distribution with the increasing load beneath the
center of a rigid strip footing
 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 7

Changes in the stress distribution, especially in the case of vertical stresses,

are associated with yielding of the foundation ground. At the beginning, plastic
zones appear near the edges of the foundation and then extend to the whole area
beneath the foundation. Evolution of plastic zones will be presented in the next
section.
Let us now investigate the changes in the stress distribution along the
center line of the pre-existing foundation when another foundation appears in the
vicinity. As mentioned before, the other foundation appears in distances of 2B,
3B and 5B from the first one. The stress distribution produced by loading the
first foundation is the background to the observations of the resultant stress
distributions caused by the pressure from both foundations.
In general, the shape of all curves is preserved. As could be expected, the
greatest increase in the stress occurred for foundations of remote 2B. Then, with
the increasing distance the vertical stresses approach the distribution from a
single foundation (Fig. 8). For all distances the stress distributions do not change
for depths exceeding 0.6.
Horizontal stresses at small depths do not vary significantly with
increasing distance between the foundations. It is noteworthy that the reduction
of their values with depth is smaller when the distance between the foundations
is greater (Fig. 9). At depths exceeding 0.6 horizontal stresses are greater for
greater distances between the foundations and decrease with decreasing distance.

vertical stress σyy [kPa]

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0

0,2
relative depth h/B

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,2

single foundation distance 2B distance 3B distance 5B

Fig. 8. Changes in the vertical stress distributions beneath the center of a pre-existing
foundation at different distances between foundations
 8 Krzysztof Sternik

horizontal stress σxx [kPa]

50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
0

0,2
relative depth h/B

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,2

single foundation distance 2B distance 3B distance 5B

Fig. 9. Changes in the horizontal stress distributions beneath the center of a prime
foundation at different distances between foundations

4. CONTACT PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

Let us now consider the contact pressure distribution. The sequence of

load application has been taken into account. Firstly, the influence of the
increasing load on the pressure distribution beneath a single foundation was
examined. Then variations of the resultant pressure distribution from two
neighboring foundations placed at various distances were investigated.
It is commonly known that the contact pressure distribution depends on
the type of soil, its bearing capacity, shape, dimensions and rigidity of the
foundation ([9]). In the case of a rigid strip foundation the shape of the contact
stress distribution alters with the level of load as depicted in Fig. 10.

a) b)

true distribution
elastic solution true distribution
elastic solution

Fig. 10. The evolution of contact pressure distribution at increasing loading acting on a
rigid foundation: a) small load, b) load approaching bearing capacity
 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 9

As depicted in Fig. 11, the results of numerical computations show the

evolution of shape of contact pressure distribution as the load increases. At the
low level of load the distribution exhibits concave shape (the lowest value under
the center of the foundation) and takes a convex shape at higher levels of load.
Starting with the load of 50% of the limit load the greatest value of contact
pressure occurs at the center line of the foundation.

distance from centre line [m]

-0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6
0

50

100
pressure σ yy [kPa]

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

10% of limit load 25% of limit load 50% of limit load 100% of load

Fig. 11. Changes of the contact pressure distributions for the increasing load

After the application of load from the adjacent footing distributions

beneath the pre-existing foundation have been determined. Again, three different
distances between footings have been considered: 2B, 3B, 5B.
The interaction between two foundations expressed as a change of vertical
contact stresses is not significant (Fig. 12). The appearance of another
foundation does not change the pattern of the distribution. When the foundations
are closely spaced one can see a small increase of the maximum vertical stress
around the center line. Nevertheless, the increase does not exceed 5 % when the
distance between foundations is 2B.
Contrary to the existing elastic solutions, in all cases the contact pressure
distributions are almost symmetric. Non-symmetry can be seen beneath the
edges of the foundation. Smaller values of contact pressures developed beneath
the right-hand edge (the edge closer to the adjacent foundation) when the
neighboring load have been added. The difference reaches 30% in the case of 2B
spacing. This asymmetric pattern disappears towards the center of the foundation.
Non-symmetry decreases for larger distances between the foundations.
 10 Krzysztof Sternik

distance from centre line [m]

-0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6
0

50

100

150
pressure σ yy [kPa]

200

250

300

350

400

450

single foundation distance 2B distance 3B distance 5B

Fig. 12. Changes of the contact pressure distributions for varying spacing between
footings

The last case to be examined is the simultaneous loading of two adjacent

foundations of the same load value. As could be expected the contact pressure
distribution is the same beneath both foundations. Small asymmetry can be
observed for both. Again, the lowest values of contact pressures occur beneath
the edges lying closer to the other foundation (Fig. 13). The pressure
distributions have not changed for distances 2B and 3B between the foundations.
Small asymmetry disappears completely when the spacing is 5B. In this case the
maximum value of contact pressure is smaller by 6% than for a single
foundation.
distance from centre line [m]
-0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6
0

50

100

150
pressure σ yy [kPa]

200

250

300

350

400

450
foundation 1 (left) foundation 2 (right)

Fig. 13. Contact pressure distribution beneath the foundations loaded simultaneously
 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 11

5. PLASTIC ZONES

For an elastic – perfectly plastic model yielding at a certain point is

equivalent to failure at this point. Plastic zones beneath footing expand with
increasing load. At the beginning failure appears near the edges of the footing
(Fig. 14). Plastic failure appears at a very early stage of loading. In the case
considered failure beneath the edges can be seen at the application of less than
3% of the limit load.
Expansion of plastic zones together with an increasing load is presented in
Fig. 14 – 17. At early stages of load (5% - 25%) one can observe the area
beneath the central part of the footing where plastic failure does not show up.
Eventually, the whole zone below the footing yields. The yielding zone is deep.
Such a shape is typical of low values of earth pressure at rest K0 ([5]).

Fig. 14. Plastic zones developed at 3% of the limit load

Fig. 15. Plastic zones developed at 5% of the limit load

 12 Krzysztof Sternik

Fig. 16. Plastic zones developed at 25% of the limit load

Fig. 17. Plastic zones developed at the limit load

After loading the ground by adjacent footing, the shape of the plastic zone
changes. Only the superficial zone below the first footing remains in a plastic
state. A part of the ground under the first footing at greater depth is unloaded.
The range and shape of the plastic zones change slightly when the distance
between the footings increases (Fig. 18 – 20). There is also a zone between the
footings that does not yield. Its range depends on the spacing between the
footings.
 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 13

Fig. 18. Plastic zones developed at the limit load of two strip footings spaced 2B (darker
shade – unloaded zone)

Fig. 19. Plastic zones developed at the limit load of two strip footings spaced 3B (darker
shade – unloaded zone)

Fig. 20. Plastic zones developed at the limit load of two strip footings spaced 5B (darker
shade – unloaded zone)
 14 Krzysztof Sternik

When two footings are simultaneously subject to loads the shape of the
plastic zone is different than in the case of sequentially acting loads. The ground
below the footings yields in a symmetrical manner with the elastic zone in the
middle. Size and range of the plastic zone depend on the distance between the
footings whereas its shape remains basically the same (Fig. 20 – 22).

Fig. 20. Plastic zone developed by simultaneously loaded strip footings spaced 2B
(darker shade – unloaded zone)

Fig. 21. Plastic zone developed by simultaneously loaded strip spaced 3B (darker shade
– unloaded zone)

Fig. 22. Plastic zone developed by simultaneously loaded strip footings spaced 5B
(darker shade – unloaded zone)
 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 15

6. ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT

When examining the settlement it should be noted that the load from the
adjacent footing causes additional settlement of the pre-existing foundation. This
fact is associated with increased stresses in the ground and can be reproduced in
all types of analysis (elastic, elasto-plastic). The influence of adjacent loads is
usually examined in engineering practice within the framework of the elasticity
theory using the principle of superposition ([2]). As could be seen in Fig. 3, the
relationship between the load and the settlement of a foundation on an elastic-
plastic ground is curvilinear from the very beginning, which means that the
principle of superposition cannot be applied.
Let us examine the impact of the stress history in the ground on the
settlement of a footing. In the case being considered the stress history is
equivalent to the sequence of load application. Thus, there are basically three
situations to be discussed: settlement of a single foundation, settlement of a
foundation in the vicinity of another one and settlement of two foundations
loaded simultaneously. In each case three distances between footings have been
analyzed.
The settlement of a single foundation loaded to 340 kPa (limit load) is
28 mm. The load from the adjacent footing causes an increase in the settlement
that is dependent on the distance between the footings. In the case considered,
the settlement of the pre-existing footing increases by 4 mm when the distance
between them is 2B, 2 mm when the distance is 3B and only 1 mm when the
distance is 5B. With respect to the initial settlement the increase of settlement is
14%, 7% and 3.6% respectively. It may be assumed that at distances greater than
5B there is no influence of the adjacent footing.
Although both footings are subject to the same load the results obtained
from the analyses show that the settlement of the footing appearing later is
smaller. For the distance of 2B between two footings the settlement of the
neighboring footing has been 18.6 mm, for 3B 19.0 mm and for 5B 19.7 mm.
Compared to the settlement of 28 mm of the pre-existing footing it is 66%, 67%,
70% respectively. From these examples it follows that the influence of the
formerly applied load on the settlement of a foundation constructed afterwards
decreases when an increase in the spacing between the footings occurs.
When two footings are loaded simultaneously their settlement is identical.
It also depends on their spacing. For 2B the settlement is 22.2 mm, for 3B it is
21.9 mm and for 5B it is 21.3 mm. In this case the increasing spacing causes a
reduction in the settlement.
 16 Krzysztof Sternik

7. CONCLUSIONS

The fact that the behavior of soils is strongly dependent on a loading

history has been well recognized in various experiments. It is also well known
that inelastic strains occur commonly in soils at a very early stage of loading.
Thus, in recent years, much effort has been made to improve soil models that
take into account material non-linearity to predict proper stress distributions in
the ground and settlements of foundations (e.g. [5], [6], [10]).
A simple theoretical study presented in the paper confirms that plastic
strains in the foundation ground appear at very early stages of loading. Although
a simple elastic – perfectly plastic model was used in the study non-linear load-
settlement relationship was obtained. There were no clear straight sections of the
load-settlement curve. It has been shown that stress distributions in the ground
are in qualitative agreement with the experimental results.
The loading history in the examples under consideration was understood
as application of loads in various order and spacing. Plastic zones beneath two
adjacent strip footings develop depending on the loading history. Although loads
applied on both footings were the same the settlements were different if footings
were not simultaneously loaded. The stresses generated in the ground before the
appearance of a new footing cause a reduction in its settlement whereas the
settlement of the existing footing increases after the application of additional
loading in the vicinity.
The tendencies observed in the analyses with a simple elastic – perfectly
plastic model must be verified through more advanced constitutive relationships.
A comparison with the results of field or laboratory trial loading would be the
ultimate verification for the theoretical predictions.

REFERENCES

1. Biarez J.: Mécanique des sols (Polish translation), Wrocław-Warszawa-

Kraków, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich – Wydawnictwo PAN, 1963.
2. Bowles J. E.: Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill Int. Eds, 1997.
3. Cudny M., Binder K.: On shear strength criteria for soils in geotechnics (in
Polish), InŜynieria Morska i Geotechnika, 6, 456-465.
4. De Borst R., Vermeer P.A.: Possibilities and limitations of finite elements for
limit analysis, Géotechnique 34, No 2, 1984, 199-210.
5. Jardine R. J., Potts D. M., Fourie A. B., Burland J. B.: Studies of non-linear
stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction, Géotechnique, 36, No.
3, 1986, 377-396.
 The analysis of stresses and displacements beneath strip foundations in terms of FEM 17

6. Jardine R. J., Potts D. M., St. John H. D., Hight D. W.: Some applications of
a non-linear ground model, Proc. X ECSMFE, Firence, 1991, 223-228.
7. Lambe T. W., Whitman R. V.: Soil Mechanics, New York – London, J.
Wiley & Sons, 1969.
8. Potts D. M., Zdravković L.: Finite element analysis in geotechnical
engineering: application, Thomas Telford Ltd, London, 2001.
9. Selvadurai A. P. S., and Kempthorne E. H.: Plane strain contact stress
distribution beneath a rigid footing resting on a soft cohesive soil, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 17, 1980, 114-122.
10. Sternik K.: Analysis of effectiveness and numerical implementation of a
single-surface elasto-plastic model for soil with strongly nonlinear
anisotropic hardening rule, Ph.D. Thesis (in Polish), Silesian Univ. of
Technol., Gliwice, 2003.
11. Śliwa J., Gryczmański M.: Geotechnics. Soil Mechanics, Vol. 1, Stresses and
Strains in the Subsoil (in Polish), Silesian Univ. of Technol., Gliwice, 1975.
12. Vermeer P.A., De Borst R.: Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and
rock, Heron, vol. 29, No. 3, 1984.

View publication stats