4 STRIP FOOTINGS

4.1 Strip footing on Winkler soil

(the distributed pressure on the soil is p/b)

Differential equation of the elastic curve:

4-1

The distributed load p on Winkler soil is expressed as

Neglecting the distributed load q the governing differential equation becomes,

which introducing the following constant

becomes

The integral of the above homogeneous differential equation is

4-2

4.1.1 Analytical solution for a load applied to footings of unlimited length

Consider a strip footing of unlimited length subjected to a concentrated load P
Since the deflection of the beam vanishes for
( )
(i.e.
), the expression of the elastic
curve reduces to

Because of symmetry, for

we have

, hence

Consequently, the expressions of y and y are

4-3

In order to reach the expression of the integration constant C3 we can follows two ways.
a)

The first one consists in imposing the equilibrium of the beam in the vertical direction

b) Another way is to take into account the symmetric distribution of the internal shear force T
about the point where the external load P is applied, i.e. for
Considering that

, for x=0 we have

To apply the above equation it is necessary to

express the third derivative of y(x).

4-4

Which, for x=0, becomes

Substitution of this equation into

leads to

where

4-5

Substituting C3 into the expression of the elastic curve we reach the following equation which
holds for positive values of x

Hence, the solution for

of the strip footing subjected to a load P is

where

4-6

4.1.2 Analytical solution for a moment applied to footings of unlimited length

Consider a strip footing of unlimited length subjected to a concentrated moment W
In this case the equation of the elastic curve

fulfills the following conditions

Consequently, the governing equation reads

Also in this case two ways can be followed to reach the expression of the integration constant C3

4-7

a)

The first one consists in imposing the rotational equilibrium of the beam

b) Another way is to take into account the symmetric distribution of the internal moment M
about the point where the external load P is applied, i.e. for
Introducing this condition into the equation
expressing the bending moment

we have

To apply this equation it is necessary to express the second derivative of the governing equation.

4-8

Which, for x=0, becomes

Substitution of this equation into

leads to

where

4-9

Substituting C3 into the expression of the elastic curve we reach the following equation that
holds for positive values of x

Hence, the solution for

of the strip footing subjected to a moment W is

where

4-10

4.1.3 Solution for a strip footing of limited length

If the strip footing has a relatively small length L (i.e.
neglected and the foundation is equivalent to a spread footing.

) its deformation can be

In the case of a large distance L between the applied loads and the edges of the strip footing
(i.e.
) the problem can be analysed adopting the solutions for foundation of unlimited
length.
This condition, however, seldom occurs in practice.

In the remaining cases it is necessary to work out the solution for the beam of limited length.
To this purpose, the superposition of suitable loading conditions on the beam of unlimited length
is adopted.

4-11

Let consider a beam of limited length subjected to a given loading condition

and let apply the same loads to a beam of unlimited length. This beam is also subjected to
external loads and moments (PA, WA, PB, WB) applied to points A and B that correspond to the
edges of the actual foundation of limited length.

In order to evaluate the loads applied to the end points of the unlimited beam it is sufficient to
enforce that at these points the internal shear force and bending moment vanish.
This leads also to the solution of the actual beam. In fact, in the portion AB, the same differential
equation governs both beams. In addition, the same boundary conditions apply. Hence, the
solutions of both problems coincide.
4-12

The following equations enforce that the internal forces (TA, MA, etc.) at point A and B of the
unlimited beam vanish.

,
, etc. represent the internal forces in the unlimited beam due to the applied loads.
(
) represents the internal shear force on the right of point A of the unlimited beam due
to a unit load applied load in A; etc.
The solution of the above system leads to the values of PA, MA, etc.
4-13

4.1.4 Solution based on the principle of minimum potential energy

For a conservative systems, among all its cinematically admissible displacement fields the one
corresponding to a stable equilibrium condition minimizes the total potential energy.

(I) admissible displacement field

(II) non-admissible displacement field
(III) displacement field that minimizes the total potential energy
The solution is found by minimizing the total potential energy expressed in terms of the
admissible displacement fields ui (i=1,2, , )

4-14

In the present context, the total potential energy has three contributions: elastic strain energy
of the beam B; elastic strain energy of Winkler soil W; work potential of the applied loads
WP. Note that the external loads do not vary with the deflection of the beam.

Rayleigh Ritz method is adopted to express the potential energy as a function of the admissible
displacement fields. In particular, these fields are expressed through series of functions that
fulfil the displacement boundary conditions and the strain compatibility relationships.
These functions depend on unknown parameters which will be evaluated by minimizing .
For sake of simplicity let divide the applied loads into their symmetric and non-symmetric parts.

4-15

 Symmetric loading condition

Taking into account the symmetry of the vertical
displacements with respect to the origin, they are
expressed as follows

where is the displacements of the beam ends:

than n must represent odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7,

. This definition of

implies

As a consequence, the expression of ( ) involves N+1 unknowns: N coefficients

(n=1,3,5) and the displacement .
The N+1 equations necessary to evaluate these unknowns consist of the equilibrium of the beam
in the y direction and of N equation expressing the minimum of the total potential energy.
4-16

Equilibrium in the vertical direction.

(p is the pressure on
Winkler soil)
Substitution of the above expression into that of ( )

leads to

Considering that

the equation of equilibrium in the vertical direction becomes

4-17

 Non-symmetric loading condition

In this case the vertical displacements are expressed
as follows

where is the displacement of the ends of the beam:

implies than m represents even numbers 0, 2, 4, 6,

. This definition of

As a consequence, the expression of ( ) involves M+1 unknowns: M coefficients

(m=0, 2,
4) and the displacement .
The M+1 equations necessary to evaluate these unknowns consist of the rotational equilibrium
of the beam and of M equation expressing the minimum of the total potential energy.

4-18

Equilibrium to rotation about the origin of axes.

Substitution of the above expression into that of y(x)

leads to

4-19

Let now apply the principle of minimum total potential energy .

The expression of the deformed beam is

where if i is even

, while if i is odd

The contributions to the potential energy are

The N+M equations are obtained by imposing that

4-20

4.1.5 Finite difference solution

This is a discrete method in which the unknowns
are represented by the displacements of a limited
number of nodes.
The discretization involves the governing equation

where q is the distributed applied load and p is the reaction of Winkler soil.
It is necessary to express the derivatives of ( ) in terms of the nodal displacements.
First derivative:

Forward derivative:

; Backward derivative:

Central derivative:

4-21

Second derivative:
Finite difference approximation:

Third derivative:
Finite difference approximation:

Forth derivative:

4-22

Substitution of the expression of the forth derivative into the equation of the elastic curve

leads to

where the pressure pi of Winkler soil is expressed as

and the applied forces Qi are reduced to distributed loads over the distance x

The solving system of linear equation is obtained by writing the equation of the elastic curve for
all nodes of the beam.
4-23

A drawback of the finite difference method concerns the imposition of the boundary conditions.
In the present case they correspond to vanishing internal shear force and moment at the ends of
the beam.
Consider the end node i of the beam,

Before solving the system it is necessary to eliminate the displacements of nodes i+1 and i+2.
To this purpose let impose the boundary conditions:
and

4-24

It should be observed that in the case of strip footings on Winkler soil the finite difference
solution does not present marked computational differences with respect to that based on the
finite element method.
In both cases, in fact, the behaviour of the beam is represented by a banded stiffness matrix K.
In the finite element context, the coefficients representing the stiffness of Winkler springs are
added to the terms of the main diagonal of the stiffness matrix of the structure.
This introduces constraints that eliminate the rigid movements of the beam (its stiffness matrix
would be singular otherwise) and allows for the solution of the system of linear equations.

4-25

4.2 Strip footing on elastic half space

The finite difference method can be used for representing the beam behavior also in the case of
elastic half space. However this method is limited to relatively simple structures and presents
difficulties when applied to the geometrically complex cases.
Since for both finite difference and finite element methods the structure is represented by its
stiffness matrix, the same solution procedure can be applied in both cases when analyzing a
structure on elastic half space.
The finite difference stiffness matrix has only one degree of freedom per node (y displacement),
while the finite element one involves, in general, also the x displacement and the rotation of
the nodes.
In the finite element cases, the stiffness coefficients of Winkler springs are added to the main
diagonal terms of the structural stiffness matrix that correspond to the y displacements.
The stiffness coefficients of the foundations on elastic half-space are obtained through
Boussinesq solution as follows.

4-26

The pressure exerted by the beam on the half space is seen as a series of distributed loads on
known areas

(side view)

(plan view)
The settlement of point j is expressed as

where the coefficients

are evaluated according to Boussinesq solution.

4-27

The relationship between pressures

and settlement

can be cast in the following matrix form

where is the matrix of coefficients, deriving from Boussinesq solution, that represents the
deformability of the half space; is the nodal force vector corresponding to the pressures and
vector collects the nodal displacements of the foundation.
Note that matrix
is fully populated and, in general, non-symmetric. Note also that the same
relationship can be worked out for any structure resting on elastic half space.

fk

. . . . . . . ..
fpi

yj

4-28

Let
be the diagonal matrix which contains only the terms of the main diagonal of matrix
and that coincides with the flexibility matrix of Winkler soil.

];

The relationship between nodal displacements u of the structure and loads

acting on it is,

where the banded stiffness matrix

of the structure, being unconstrained, is singular and where
are the nodal forces due to the soil pressures .
Note that, in the finite element case, the vector of nodal displacement contains additional
degrees of freedom with respect to the displacements of the foundations.

4-29

The stiffness matrix of the half-space is,

;
hence, the solving system could be obtained by overlapping the two stiffness matrices.
(

It has to be considered, however, that matrix

is fully populated and, in general, nonsymmetric. Consequently also
is so. This would prevent its implementation in standard finite
element codes which consider the stiffness matrix as symmetric and banded.
To overcome this drawback, the same procedure already outlined for the analysis of statically
undermined structures on spread footings can be adopted.

4-30

First, the stiffness matrix

corresponding to the flexibility matrix

is evaluated,

then the following iterative process is performed.

a) The problem is solved overlapping matrices
with Winkler soil) obtaining the nodal forces
(

and
(this corresponds to the analysis
exchanged between structure and soil.

b) These forces are used to evaluate the settlements

of the foundations on the half-space

4-31

c) The structural problem is solved again, without introducing the half-space stiffness matrix,
imposing to the structure the displacement of the foundations as nodal constraints,

and the forces

are re-calculated.

Steps (b) and (c) are repeated until no appreciable changes of vectors

and

occur.

This iterative procedure could not converge when the global stiffness of the foundations is
markedly different from that of the structure (e.g. a very stiff structure on a very deformable
soil). In this case, a suitable provision could consist in averaging at step (c) the settlements
obtained from two subsequent iterations
(

where

4-32

4.3 Strip footing on Pasternak and on Repnikow soils

Pasternak soil is an obsolete model that adds to Winkler springs a layer S reacting only to shear.
This model and the subsequent one proposed by Repnikov are mentioned here only for
providing some historical hints.
Pasternak soil (Petr Leontevic Pasternak, 1930)

4-33

The equation of equilibrium of layer S is

Assuming

, the equilibrium equation becomes

The stress strain relationship of layer S reads

4-34

Substitution of the stress strain relationship into the equilibrium equation leads to

Introducing the above equation, and that of Winkler soil

elastic curve of the beam,

, into the equation of the

The governing equation for Pasternak soil is finally arrived at

4-35

 Repnikov soil (L. N. Repnikow, 1967)

This model consists of the superposition of Winkler springs and elastic half-space. It aims at
limiting the drawbacks of the two original modes:
a) settlements developing also at a large distance from the foundation in the case of elastic halfspace;
b) settlements developing only below the foundation in the case of Winkler soil.
However, the actual difficulties in predicting the foundation settlements depends on the nonlinear behaviour of soils rather than on the linear model adopted in the calculations.
Since analytical solutions applicable in engineering practice for strip footings on elastic half
space are not available, also Repnikow soil requires the use of the numerical solution procedure
previously described.
Winkler, Parternak and Repnikow models present the same drawback: the constants K (Winkler
springs) and G (Pasternak layer S) do not represent physical properties of soils and,
consequently, cannot be determined by tests on soil samples.

4-36

4.4 Additional types of continuous footings

Grid foundations: they consist of combined footings formed by intersecting continuous strip
footings. In most cases the load of the structure are applied at their intersection points.
They are adopted to limit the differential settlements of the structure.

4-37

 Mat or slab or raft foundations: these are continuous footings having a slab like shape. They
can have depressions or openings. In most cases they are chosen to reduce the differential
settlements. They could be economically convenient with respect to spread and strip footings
when the total area of the isolated foundations exceeds about 50% of the total area of the
building.

4-38

Cellular mats can be used also to host facilities, e.g. garages or technical plants.

4-39

4.5 Compensated foundations

These are foundations in which the stress relief due to excavation is approximately balanced by
the applied stress due to the foundation. They are usually adopted in very soft soils when the use
of deep foundation would not be convenient.
A compensated foundation normally comprises a deep basement and a rigid slab.
Main problems of compensated foundations are:
- differential settlements
- stability of the excavation walls
- stability of the bottom of excavation
- effect of the pore water pressure

4-40

Mechanism governing the settlements of a compensated foundation.

Log scale

= unloading

. ..

(2)

(1)

(3)

(1) Initial in situ condition

(2) End of swelling due to unloading
(3) Construction of building

4-41