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

net/publication/290032742

Finite element-based parametric analysis of mat foundations

Article · June 2014

DOI: 10.1201/b17017-124

CITATIONS READS

0 35

2 authors:

Sami W. Tabsh Magdi M. El-Emam

American University of Sharjah American University of Sharjah
52 PUBLICATIONS   582 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Experimental and computational studies on steel base plates on leveling nuts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sami W. Tabsh on 11 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering – Hicks, Brinkgreve & Rohe (Eds)
© 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, 978-1-138-00146-6

Finite element-based parametric analysis of mat foundations

S.W. Tabsh & M.M. El-Emam

American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE

ABSTRACT: Mat foundation is reinforced or posttensioned concrete slab on grade encompassing all the
columns and shear-walls within the structure. It has the advantage of reducing differential settlements as the
concrete slab resists differential movements between loading positions. Such a structure is considered a soil-
structure interaction problem. Therefore, the structural behavior of mat foundation is complex in nature and often
requires the use of computer modeling, such as finite element or finite difference technique. In order to model
a mat, the engineer needs to understand the importance of the design variables on the response. The objective
of this study is to investigate the effect of mat thickness, soil modulus of subgrade, and mat plan geometry on
the soil bearing pressure, bending moment, and shear forces within the mat. To do so, linearly-elastic finite
element analysis is used to model the mat with shell elements on elastic springs. The results of the study showed
that the concrete modulus of elasticity and Poisson ratio have negligible effect on the soil bearing pressure,
bending moment and shear. On the other hand, both the mat thickness and the span length have significant effect
on the considered load effects. With regard to the effect of the soil’s subgrade modulus, a change in the parameter
shows moderate effect on the maximum soil pressure and bending moment, but slight impact on the shear.

1 INTRODUCTION foundations. For example, Mehrotra et al. (1980) intro-

duced an approximate method of stiffness analysis
There are many methods for the structural analysis of of mat foundation for a multi-panel framed building.
mat or raft foundation. Such methods are concerned His method showed a 25% reduction in the intensity
with determining the minimum thickness for resist- of the maximum bending moment in the raft to that
ing shear and amount of longitudinal reinforcement given by the more commonly used conventional rigid
at the top and bottom of the mat in the two direc- method. Later on, Shukla (1984) developed a simpli-
tions to counter resist bending moments. Designers fied method for design of mat foundations on elastic
usually rely on the strip method i.e. take a strip of unit soil mediums. The study addresses computations of
width along the length of the mat and analyzing it as modulus of subgrade reaction and methods to calculate
a combined footing on elastic supports. This method moments, shear forces, and deflection at critical points
is not very accurate and uses many approximations. on the mat using charts. A survey of the available com-
However, it gives the designer a good idea for initial puterized methods for mat foundations was conducted
estimation for further detailed analysis later on, quick by Bowles (1986). Advantages and disadvantages of
validation of computer results and for cost estimation the three common discrete element methods, the finite
purposes. Another method is to treat the mat under the difference, finite grid, and finite element were out-
applied loads as an infinitely rigid pad; thus, result- lined. Particular emphasis was given to the effect of the
ing in a linear pressure distribution under mat. In this modulus of subgrade reaction of the soil and coupling
method, the mat is assumed more rigid than the sur- between the substructure and superstucture. Treatment
rounding soil, so flexure of the mat does not affect of grid floor beams as stiffeners in mats was done
the distribution of the soil bearing pressure under the by Liou and Lai (1996), who presented a simplified
mat. The magnitude and distribution of the bearing structural analysis model for this type of foundation.
pressure depends only on the applied loads and weight The model considered the subgrade modulus for the
of the mat, and is either uniform or varies linearly soil and utilized the yield-line theory in the analy-
within the mat. This method is not appropriate because sis of the stiffened mat. Comparisons with the results
portions of the mat below a column or load bearing by a sophisticated finite-element model were made
wall settle more than other portions subjected to less in order to demonstrate the accuracy of the model.
load, which increases the bearing pressure beneath the Later, Meyerhof (2002) reviewed the design and per-
heavily-loaded zones, especially for rafts on stiff soils formance of rafts resting on sand and gravel in relation
and rock. to the settlement and allowable bearing pressures, and
A quick literature review indicates some research found out that the bearing capacity in some cases could
activities on soil-structure interaction in relation to mat be increased by 50% if the allowable settlement is

693
increased to 2 times the observed value. Tabsh and
Al-Shawa (2005) used the finite element approach to
investigate the flexibility of shallow foundations and
their effect on the soil pressure distribution, shear and
moment within the foundation. The study showed that
maximum shear forces within a spread footing are less
sensitive to changes in the stiffness of a footing than
bending moments. A rigidity factor that governs the
structural behavior of the foundation was also devel-
oped. Recently, Thangaraj and Ilamparuthi (2007)
performed an interaction analysis of space frame-raft-
soil system under static load to study the influence of
stiffness of raft on space frame. These analyses were
carried out for both linear and nonlinear conditions
of soil. The influence of interaction between a space
frame, raft and soil was considered in terms of relative
stiffness of superstructure and relative stiffness of raft.
More recently, research on the subject of modulus of Figure 1. Raft foundation used in the parametric study.
subgrade reaction for soil-structure interaction have
Table 1. Parameters investigated in the study.
been carried out by Colasanti and Horvath (2010) and
Horvath and Colasanti (2010). Design Parameter Magnitudes
Current approaches for structural design of mats
assume the foundation to be infinitely rigid. Prelim- Concrete Modulus of 20 × 106 25 × 106 25 × 106
inary studies by the authors show that this approach Elasticity, Ec (kN/m2 )
often over-estimates the critical shear and moment in Modulus of Subgrade 25,000 50,000 100,000
the mat, but under-estimates the maximum soil pres- reaction, K (kN/m3 )
sure beneath the mat. This could lead to a mat thickness Concrete Poisson’s 0.1 0.2 0.4
larger than required and an amount of steel reinforce- Ratio, µc
ment more than needed; thus resulting in an unneces- Clear Span lengths, Lx 3.0 6.0 12.0
sary cost increase in the foundation. Underestimation and Ly (m)
of the soil pressure can also result in a lower factor of Mat Thickness, t (m) 0.5 1.0 2.0
safety against bearing capacity failure and may cause
excessive settlement of the structure beyond the allow-
able limits. Based on the above, there is a need to of 0.5 m × 0.5 m was found suitable for all the consid-
investigate the accuracy of currently used procedures ered cases. Figure 1 shows the raft geometry, whereas
and propose a method for sizing mat foundations for Figure 2 shows the typical bending moments and shear
a given set of loads, soil type and material properties. forces for the reference raft.

3 RESULTS
2 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Soil pressure
In this research, the commercially available software
SAFE (CSI 2011) is utilized to determine the criti- Figure 3 shows the effect of various engineering
cal moments and shears within the concrete mat, as parameters on the vertical soil stress that is bearing
well as the soil pressure values and distribution under against the underside of the raft. The results indicate
the foundation. The behavior and sensitivity analysis that the concrete modulus of elasticity and Poisson
parts of the study are based on a 3bays-by-3bays mat ratio have negligible effect on the soil bearing pressure.
foundation subjected to loads coming from 16 columns On the other hand, both the concrete mat thickness
located along a symmetrical grid, as shown in Figure 1. and the span length have significant effect on the con-
Only axial loads are applied since bending moments sidered parameter. As expected, as the slab thickness
are negligibly small at the support of high-rise build- increases, it makes the raft more rigid; thus, it curves
ings subjected to gravity loads. Table 1 shows the range less, and consequently leads to near-uniform bearing
of the material and geometric variables considered in pressure by the soil. However, the results show that the
the analyses. effect of raft thickness on the soil pressure distribution
The mat foundation is modeled in SAFE software diminishes after a threshold value, in this case 2 m.
as a 2-dimensional slab on discrete elastic spring sup- An opposite pattern is noticed with regard to the effect
ports that are defined by the modulus of subgrade of the span length on the soil bearing pressure. This
reaction of the soil. The mat is subdivided into thick is because an increase in the span length reduces the
plate finite elements with bending and shear deforma- stiffness of the raft, and consequently it curves more.
tion capabilities. The size of the elements was decided With regard to the effect of the soil’s subgrade mod-
upon after a thorough mesh size trials. A mesh size ulus, which reflects the stiffness of the supporting

694
Figure 2. Typical results from SAFE software for a raft
foundation.

springs, an increase in the parameter shows negligible

effect on the minimum soil pressure. More interesting
finding is that effect of the subgrade reaction on the
maximum soil pressure, which indicates no system-
atic trend. The results in Figure 3 also show that as the
spring stiffness (i.e. soil subgrade modulus) increases,
the maximum soil pressure increases up to a limit,
thereafter, it decreases. Figure 4 shows the pressure
distribution under a typical raft, obtained from the
finite element analysis.

3.2 Bending moment

An important design parameter for structural engi-
neers is the bending moment in a raft foundation.
Such a parameter dictates the required thickness of
the raft, as well as the amount of top and bottom steel
reinforcement in the two horizontal directions.
Figure 5 shows the effect of various design param-
eters on the critical (maximum or minimum) positive
and negative bending moments the raft. The results
show again that both the concrete modulus of elastic-
ity and Poisson ratio have insignificant effect on the
bending moment in the mat. In contrast, both the con-
crete mat thickness and the span length have a great
effect on the bending moment. For example, as the slab
thickness increases, it makes the raft more rigid; thus, Figure 3. Variation of soil pressure with different design
it curves less, and consequently leads to near-uniform parameters.

695
Figure 4. Typical pressure distribution under the raft.

bending moment within the whole raft panel. At some

point both negative and positive moments become
equal; in this case, when the raft thickness equals
1.8 m. It is observed that the effect of the span length on
the positive bending is less significant when compared
with its effect on the negative moment. It should be
noted that the negative moment in this study is defined
a moment that causes tension at the bottom of the raft,
in this case, below the columns. With regard to the
effect of the soil’s subgrade modulus, an increase in
the soil modulus shows a slight effect on both the max-
imum positive and negative bending moments. As the
soil becomes stiffer, a slight increase occurs in the neg-
ative moments, which is accompanied by a marginal
decrease in the positive bending moment.

3.3 Shear force

The shear force is very important parameter because it
affects the minimum raft thickness such that stirrups
would not be needed and in order to avoid punch-
ing shear under columns with small cross-sectional
dimensions.
Figure 6 demonstrates the effect of the considered
parameters on the critical (absolute value) shear force
within the raft. Similar to the results on soil pressure
and bending moment, the analysis showed that the con-
crete modulus of elasticity and Poisson ratio have little
effect on the shear force in the mat. In addition, the sub-
grade modulus of the soil also has negligible effect on
shear. In contrast, the span length have a great effect
on the shear force. As the distance between columns
increases from 3 m to 12 m, the normalized shear force
linearly increases from 3 to 12.
The effect of mat thickness on shear does not have
a clear ascending or descending trend. The results
showed that shear force in the raft increases with the
raft thickness up to 1 m, thereafter, it decreases.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study lead to the following conclusions:

1. Concrete modulus of elasticity and Poisson ratio Figure 5. Variation of maximum bending moment with
have negligible effect on the soil pressure under different design parameters.

696
 the mat, and bending moment and shear in the
foundation.
2. Both the mat thickness and the span length between
the columns have significant effect on the consid-
ered load effects on the mat surface and internally
within the mat.
3. The soil’s subgrade modulus has a moderate effect
on the maximum soil pressure under the mat and
bending moment within the mat. However, the sub-
grade modulus of the soil has a slight impact on the
shear within the foundation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank former undergraduate

students Eyad Hawat and Hashim Amborsa, and cur-
rent graduate student Pouya Partizyan for helping out
in the computer runs. Special thanks are also due to
the American University of Sharjah for funding this
research project through the FRG program.

REFERENCES
Bowles, J.E., 1986, “Mat Design,” Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, v 83, n 6, p 1010–1017, Nov–Dec.
Colasanti, Regis J.; Horvath, John S. 2010, “Practical sub-
grade model for improved soil-structure interaction anal-
ysis: Software implementation,” Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, v 15, n 4,
p 278–286, November.
CSI, 2011, Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000,
ETABS, and SAFE, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, California.
Horvath, John S.; Colasanti, Regis J. 2010, “Practical
subgrade model for improved soil-structure interaction
analysis: Model development.” International Journal of
Geomechanics, v 11, n 1, p 59–64, April.
Liou, G.-S., and Lai, S.C., 1996, “Structural analysis model
for mat foundations,” Journal of structural engineering,
ASCE, New York, v 122, n 9, p 1114–1117.
Mehrotra, B.L., Gupta, Y.P., Baska, A.K., and Govil, A.K.,
1980, “Approximate Method – Raft-Structure Interaction
Analysis,” Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for
Civil Engineers, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 12p.
Meyerhof, G.G., 2002, “Shallow foundations,” Geotechnical
Special Publication, ASCE, No. 118I, p 1080–1090.
Potts, D.M., and Zdravkovic, L., 2001, “Finite Element
Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering –Theory andAppli-
cations,” Thomas Telford Publishing, 440 p.
Shukla, S.N., 1984, “Simplified Method for Design of Mats
on Elastic Foundations,” Journal of theAmerican Concrete
Institute, v 81, n 5, p 469–475, Sep-Oct.
Tabsh, S.W., and Al-Shawa, A-R., 2005, “Effect of spread
footing flexibility on structural response,” Practice Peri-
odical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE,
v 10, n 2, p 109–114, May.
Thangaraj, D., and Ilamparuthi, K., 2007, “Influence of rela-
tive stiffness of soil-raft-system on the behaviour of space
Figure 6. Variation of maximum shear force with different frame,” Journal of Structural Engineering (Madras), v 34,
design parameters. n 2, p 111–123, June/July.

697

View publication stats