Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

3D FEM Analysis of Shallow Foundations subjected to Moment at fixed Vertical Load

Ravi Salimath1 and Michael J. Pender2

ABSTRACT: Soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) for stiff shallow foundations subject to moment at a fixed

vertical load is investigated in this paper. Under the action of moment there may be uplift at the edges of the foundation

with consequent uneven foundation settlement and contact stress distribution. Even if the underlying soil is elastic the partial

loss of contact means that the geometry of the foundation changes and the system response is nonlinear. Nonlinear response

of the soil will introduce further nonlinearity into the system behaviour. In such cases the nature and extent of the contact

pressure distribution between the underside of the foundation and the underlying soil is of interest. For this study, nonlinear

three dimensional finite element analysis was carried out using the PLAXIS 3D software. Footings with various L/B ratios

and subject to vertical load at various fractions of the bearing strength of the foundation under vertical load only were

analysed. The paper presents parametric equations for the moment at which uplift is initiated, the variation in effective

foundation width with increasing moment, and coefficients for hyperbolic moment-rotation curves that closely match the

moment-rotation curves obtained from the PLAXIS 3D modelling.

Keywords: PLAXIS 3D; shallow foundations; lift-off; Moment;

1 Introduction

When a shallow foundation carrying vertical load is subjected to moment, there may be uplift with consequent

partial loss of contact with the underlying soil. The changing dimensions of the contact area make the moment-

rotation response of the footing highly nonlinear, even when the underlying material is elastic. When there is

yielding or localised failure of the soil beneath the foundation the nonlinear response of the foundation is further

pronounced. A commonly used shallow foundation design approach represents the interaction between a

shallow foundation and the underlying soil with a bed of discrete detachable springs which may also be

nonlinear. With recent advances in numerical modelling tools, it is possible to effectively model complex soil-

structure interaction using 3D finite element analysis; in this way modelling is more realistic than a simple

spring bed is possible. The purpose of this paper is to investigate, using the PLAXIS 3D software (PLAXIS 3D,

2011), the moment-rotation response of a shallow foundation and compare these results with those obtained

from the spring bed model. There is a no-tension interface between the underside of the foundation and the soil.

The nonlinear soil behaviour is represented using the hardening soil model in Plaxis.

1 PhD candidate, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engg, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Email:
ravi.salimath@gmail.com

2 Professor, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engg, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Email:
m.pender@auckland.ac.nz
However, there are very few studies in which extensive 3D finite element analysis is performed. Some

researchers have even suggested that nonlinear SFSI can aid in better performance of rocking foundations.

Bartlett (1976) studied the moment-rotation response of spread footing rocking on a clay soil by conducting

laboratory experiments using model footings. Allotey and Naggar (2003) presented analytical solutions to obtain

moment-rotation curves for a rigid footing based on Winkler model. Gourvenec (2004) investigated the effects

of footing geometry on the capacity of rectangular footings. Pender (2007) discussed the limitations of

numerical models based on spring beds to simulate rotational behaviour of shallow foundations and also

discussed the role of bearing strength surface. Raychowdhury and Hutchinson (2009) investigated the

performance of nonlinear Winkler based modelling on shallow foundations using centrifuge tests. Harden and

Hutchinson (2009) used beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) approach to study the mechanism of

yielding and uplift of shallow foundations during rocking under seismic activity. Algie (2011) investigated the

nonlinear rotational behaviour of shallow foundations on clay using field snap-back testing and numerical

modelling. He also proposed an equation to evaluate nonlinear moment-rotation response based on hyperbolic

stress-strain relationship.

For the work reported in this paper footings with different L/B ratios were investigated at different values of

normalised vertical load parameter, Vn = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. The fixed vertical load applied to the footings

was normalised with respect to the bearing strength of the foundation under vertical load only, that is Vn =

V/Vuo. The behaviour of footings with L/B>1, was analysed with moment acting about the width axis and,

separately, about the length axis. Moment-rotation response was obtained using PLAXIS 3D for each of the load

cases and the results were compared with spring-bed model (Pender, 2016) and hyperbolic moment-rotation

equation (Algie, 2011). 3D plots of contact pressure distribution were constructed from PLAXIS 3D results at

different moment values. The nature of the stress distribution was studied at key stages of lift-off, post lift-off

and ultimate moment condition. One of the advantages of PLAXIS 3D is that the mesh consists of tetrahedral

shaped elements. The results from PLAXIS 3D were plotted in terms of normalised parameters Vn and Mn

(=M/BVuo) and the impact of parameters such as L/B ratio, direction of the applied moment, etc. on the footing

behaviour were assessed. Based on these studies, equations were derived to evaluate MLO and effective footing

width, B’ accounting for the effects of nonlinear SFSI, L/B, direction of the applied moment, etc. using curve

fitting. The main objective of this study was to realistically simulate using PLAXIS 3D software the various

stages of response of footings subjected to moment at fixed vertical load.


2 Numerical model development

2.1 Spring-bed model (Pender, 2016)

Numerical modelling is a simple and effective tool to simulate soil-structure interaction and one of the

most widely used models is spring-bed model. Over the years many researchers such as Allotey et al

(2003) and Hutchinson et al (2009) have adopted and proposed analytical solutions based on non-

linear Winkler soil models. Most of the structural analysis software programs use bed of springs to

model soil. However in the recent past the reliability of the existing solutions based on spring-bed

model is debated especially in modelling non-linear soil-foundation-structure-interaction. One of the

key objectives of this whole study was to evaluate nonlinear moment-rotation relationship for footing

subjected to moment. Algie (2011) demonstrated SFSI is highly nonlinear once there is footing uplift

and loss of contact. In this study, the results from a new spring-bed model proposed by Pender (2016)

are compared with the results PLAXIS 3D finite element analysis program. In this new spring-bed

model, soil is modelled as a bed of non-linear detachable springs which makes it possible to simulate

footing uplift and loss of contact. Figure 1 shows the different stages of contact stress distribution

considered in the spring-bed model for the evaluation of moment-rotation relationship of footing on

clay. The first stage is the calculation of uniform stress distribution and elastic settlement of the

footing under vertical load only Fig 1.1). The moment is then applied to the footing which results in

rotation and non-uniform contact stress distribution. At this stage, the behavior is linear elastic (Fig

1.2). Next stage is the footing lift-off where the contact stress at one edge of the footing reduces to

zero (Fig 1.3). At this point the soil behavior shifts from linear elastic to nonlinear. Figs 1.4 and 1.5

show the stress block diagrams for footing beyond the lift-off phase. The partial width of the footing

is no longer in contact with the underlying soil and there is reduction is bearing capacity. Plastic

displacements occur during this stage. Fig 1.6 shows the stress block at ultimate moment condition.

At this point the available bearing capacity is completely mobilized and any increase in moment will

lead to failure of the footing. The available footing width, B ' at ultimate moment is

M ult
B'  B 2 (1)
V
B

V V M2 V M3

1 2 3

elastic

V V V
M4 M5 Mult

4 5 6

qu
B'

M2 < M3 < M4 < M5 < Mult , vertical load constant


B' = B - 2M ult /V

Figure 1: Moment-rotation behaviour of footing with fixed vertical load, V (new spring-bed model,
Pender, 2016)

2.2 PLAXIS 3D model

PLAXIS 3D 2011 is a three dimensional finite element developed to perform analysis of geotechnical

problems. It contains an array of geometric tools with which one can create arbitrary geometries along

with easy to use interface and meshing options. It possible to define a wide range of soil parameters

from shear strength, permeability, OCR, damping factors, frictional resistance, etc. and also accounts

for pore pressure effects. Modelling in PLAXIS 3D can be daunting depending on the complexity of

the problem. Initially short studies were carried out to understand behavior of interface, boundary

effects, stress concentration around the corners, etc. The footing was modelled as a nonporous volume

element resting on the ground surface. The model boundaries were stretched far beyond the footing

and default boundary conditions were applied as shown in Figure 2. To facilitate footing uplift and

loss of contact with the underlying soil interface was inserted between the footing and the soil.

Interface boundaries were extended 1m beyond the footing to avoid stress concentration at the corners

and rigidly connected to the footing. The value of stiffness was kept the same for both soil and the

interface and it was ensured that interface properties do not impact the bearing strength. No water
table was considered and hardening soil model was used for both soil and the interface. One of the

advantages of PLAXIS 3D is the option of local mesh refinement. In order to reduce the calculation

time without compromising accuracy, mesh was locally refined to the required degree of fineness only

around the footing zone of influence (See Figure 2). For all the cases analyzed, the width (B) and the

thickness (T) of the footing were kept constant at 6m and 1m respectively. One of the key objectives

of this study was to determine the effect of L/B on the moment-rotation response and footing effective

width. Four different sized footings resting were analyzed with L/B = 1, 2, 3 and 5. Footings were

subjected to a vertical load at the center and moment was applied in increments until the failure was

reached. The vertical load remained constant throughout the analysis and the footings were rigid

(Figure 4). For each footing size moment-rotation behavior was analyzed at four vertical load cases,

Vn = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. For footings with L/B>1, the analysis was performed with moment about

both shorter axis and longer axis (Figure 3). Undrained shear strength of the soil was kept constant for

all the cases at su = 85 kPa. For the case of L/B = 1, analysis was repeated at undrained shear

strengths of su = 37kPa, 85kPa, 157kPa and 278kPa. The soil parameters for the hardening soil model

(Obrzud, 2013 and PLAXIS material models manual, 2013) were obtained from the results of triaxial

tests performed on residual clay soils at Albany site, Auckland.

One of the challenges during the model development was the use of interface. In PLAXIS 3D

interface consists of elements made up pairs of nodes and can be attached to any surface to simulate

soil-structure interaction more accurately. There are two types of interfaces; positive and negative

interface depending on whether the side of the surface is at the positive/negative z-axis direction. All

interfaces are assigned a default virtual thickness of 0.1m. Interfaces have the same material tabsheet

as soils and the strength of the interface is defined by a parameter “Rinter” with values ranging between

0 and 1. One major concern with the interface is when Rinter < 1, both strength and stiffness of the

material are reduced and it may impact the value of footing settlement. So in order to overcome this

problem it was ensured that the stiffness of both soil and interface material are equal. More detailed

information on the interface is outlined in the PLAXIS 3D reference manual (2013).


Boundary conditions:
Top surface: free
XZ plane: Uy = 0, Ux and Uz are free
YZ plane: Ux =0, Uy and Uz are free
Bottom surface: Fully fixed (Ux = Uy =
Uz = 0)

Figure 2: PLAXIS 3D model of 6mx18m footing with moment about shorter axis along with a
snapshot of the generated mesh view showing local refinement
M

(a) Footing (b) Footing


M M
L
B

M
B L

Figure 3: Direction of the applied moment on the footing (a) about shorter axis (b) about longer axis

0.3
Footing
Underlying soil
0.2
Settlement (m)

0.1

0 4 8 12 16 20

 0.1

 0.2

Footing length interval (m)

Figure 4: Settlement profile of 6mx18 footing and the underlying soil at Vn = 0.1 and M = 40600 kN
2.2.1 Hardening soil model

For success of numerical modelling in geotechnical engineering it is very important to choose the

correct constitutive model for soil so that the realistic behavior can be simulated. One of the major

concerns with linear elastic perfectly plastic models like Mohr-Coulomb model is the stiffness is that

the stiffness behavior is not realistically modelled which results in underestimation of displacements.

One of the main objectives of this study is to simulate the nonlinear soil-foundation-structure-

response (SFSI) and predict realistic displacements; so the hardening soil model was choosen. The

Hardening soil model (Schanz et al, 1999) is an advanced soil model used to simulate behaviour of both soft and

stiff soils which incorporates hyperbolic stress –strain relationship, stress dependent stiffness different for both

virgin loading and reloading.

Some of the important characteristics of the hardening soil model are

 Hyperbolic stress strain relationship in axial compression

 Stress dependent stiffness according to a power law

 Plastic straining due to primary compression

 Plastic straining due to primary deviatoric loading

 Failure according to Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion

 History of pre-consolidation stress and dilatancy effects

The various parameters of the hardening soil model are


 Cohesion, c
 Friction angle, ϕ
 Dilatancy angle, ψ
 Secant stiffness, E50ref
 Oedometer stiffness, Eoedref
 Unloading/reloading stiffness, Eurref
 Power for stress-level dependency of stiffness, m

Figures 5 and 6 show the hyperbolic stress-strain relationship and yield surface for the hardening soil
model. Detailed formulation and verification of Hardening soil model can be found in various
references (e.g. PLAXIS 3D material models manual, 2013; Schanz et al, 1999; Obrzud, 2013, etc).
(a) (b)

Figure 5: (a) Hyperbolic stress strain relationship in primary loading for standard drained triaxial test and
(b) Total yield contour of the hardening soil model in principal stress

2.3 Model Validation

The model was validated using the experimental results obtained during a series of field snap-back

experiments performed by Algie (2011). The tests were conducted on 0.4mx2m strip footing

embedded 0.4m in the residual clay soil at different locations on a site near Albany, Auckland. The

test footings were attached to a steel frame and a fixed vertical was applied. The frame was pulled

back and suddenly released using a quick release mechanism allowing the footing to rock on the soil.

The moment-rotation curves were recorded during the initial pull-back phase. Using the same soil

properties and test data on one of the locations, test footing was modelled in PLAXIS 3D and the

moment-rotation response was obtained with a fixed vertical load of 130 kN. The model boundaries

were extended well beyond the footing (Fig 2) and interface was used both on the sides and

underneath the footing. The interface was extended about 0.5m beyond the footing boundaries to

avoid high stress concentrations at the corners. The undrained shear strength of the soil, su at the

location for Tests 7 and 9 (simulated in PLAXIS 3D) was around 103kPa and 140kPa respectively.

Maximum shear modulus recommended as per soil investigation report was 40 MPa. Figure 6 shows

the comparison of moment-rotation curves obtained using PLAXIS 3D analysis and ones recorded

during snap-back experiments for tests 7 and 9. It is evident that the results from PLAXIS 3D are in

good agreement with snap-back test results. Similar procedure was repeated for another set of snap-
back test data and results from PLAXIS 3D analysis converged very well with the test data. Hence, it

was concluded that no further validation of the model was necessary.

(a) (b)
100 100

80 80
Moment (kNm)

Moment (kNm)
60 60

40 40

20 PLAXIS 3D 20 PLAXIS 3D
Snap-back Test (Algie, 2011) Snap-back Test (Algie, 2011)
0 0
 3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3
0 210 410 610 810 0.01 0 210 410 610 810 0.01

Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)

Figure 6: Comparison of static moment-rotation curves obtained from PLAXIS 3D analysis and snap-back
tests (Algie, 2011)

3 Hyperbolic moment-rotation equation (Algie and Pender, 2011)

Algie (2011) performed a series of large scale field experiments (snap-back tests) on 0.4mx2m long

strip footings embedded 0.4m in the residual soil (Figure 7). The objective of the testing program was

to study the rocking behavior of shallow foundation and evaluate the nonlinear moment-rotation

response. Two types of moment-rotation response were obtained during the snap-back tests; static

moment-rotation response, recorded during the initial pull back phase and the dynamic moment-

rotation response, recorded during the rocking phase. The static moment-rotation data recorded during

the pull-back phase showed considerable non-linearity. Based on the experimental data, curve fitting

was carried out and a hyperbolic moment-rotation equation was proposed based on the hyperbolic

stress-strain relationship for cohesive soils by Kondner (1963).

Upon inspection of results from snap-back experiments, Algie (2011) applied the hyperbolic stress-strain

relationship given by Kondner (1963) to obtain moment-rotation behaviour of footings. The proposed

hyperbolic moment-rotation equation for footings on clay is

θ
M= (5)
a + bθ
Fig 7: Static moment-rotation curves from snap back tests (Algie, 2011) with upper and lower bound curve fit

1 1
Where, the parameters ‘a’ and ‘b’ are given as; a = ;b = ; ki = initial stiffness of the footing evaluated
ki M ult

using Gazetas (1990) formula. One of the advantages of hyperbolic moment-rotation equation is that it is

simple and accounts for soil nonlinearity. However, it does not account for the effects of L/B, footing

embedment and the undrained shear strength.

4 Results
One of the key objectives of this study is to assess the performance of shallow foundations in terms of

normalized parameters Vn and Mn. Figures 8.a and 8.b show the moment-rotation curves for 6mx18m

footing at V/Vuo = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4, obtained using PLAXIS 3D finite element program. From the

plots it is evident that as V/Vuo increases the moment capacity of the footing also increases but the

magnitude of increment reduces with increase in V/Vuo. Another interesting observation is that

despite being subjected to the same V/Vuo, the footing exhibits much higher rotational stiffness when

moment is applied about longer axis as shown in Fig 8.b. This implies that for footings with L/B >1,

the direction of the applied moment has significant impact on the moment capacity. The moment-

rotation curves for 6mx18m footing obtained using PLAXIS 3D were also compared with curves from

spring-bed model (Pender, 2016) and hyperbolic moment-rotation equation (Algie, 2011) as shown in

Figs. 9 to 10. Even though all these three approaches predict nonlinear moment-rotation response but

there is considerable variation in the results. Fig 9.a shows that for V/Vuo = 0.1 case, PLAXIS 3D
predicts higher rotational stiffness than spring-bed model and hyperbolic moment-rotation equation

when moment is applied about shorter axis. For the same footing if V/Vuo is increased to 0.3, the

spring-bed model predicts slightly larger rotational stiffness than PLAXIS 3D as shown in Fig 10.a.

For the same load cases, the moment-rotation behavior is very different when the moment is applied

about the longer axis as shown in Figs. 9.b and 10.b. Similar inconsistencies in results were observed

in the analysis for footings with L/B = 1,2 and 5. This clearly indicates that assessing the behavior of

footings in terms of normalized parameters Vn and Mn is more effective when footings are subjected

to combined loading of V and M.

When footing is subjected to moment in addition to vertical load, footing uplift and rotation occurs.

At certain stage footing partially loses contact with the underlying which results in reduction of

bearing capacity which can be detrimental to the performance of the structure. In order to assess the

reduction in bearing capacity it is crucial to evaluate the actual width/length of the footing in contact

with underlying soil. In this study the effective width concept is closely examined by plotting the

results from PLAXIS 3D and spring-bed model in terms of normalized parameters, Mn and B’/B.

(a) (b)
5 4
1.310 4.210

5 4
1.0410 3.3610
Moment (kNm)

Moment (kNm)

4 4
7.810 2.5210

4 4
5.210 1.6810
V/Vuo = 0.1 V/Vuo = 0.1
4 V/Vuo = 0.2 3 V/Vuo = 0.2
2.610 8.410
V/Vuo = 0.3 V/Vuo = 0.3
V/Vuo = 0.4 V/Vuo = 0.4
0 0
3 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
0 810 0.016 0.024 0.032 0.04

Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)

Figure 8: Moment-rotation curves for 6mx18m footing with V/Vuo = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 and
moment applied (a) about short axis and (b) about long axis
(a) (b)
4 4
510 1.510

4 4
410 1.210

4 3
310 910

4 3
210 610

4 PLAXIS 3D 3 PLAXIS 3D
110 310
Springbed model Springbed model
Hyperbolic moment-rotation Hyperbolic moment-rotation
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

Figure 9: Moment-curves for 6mx18m footing at V/Vuo = 0.1 (a) moment about shorter axis (b)
moment about longer axis

(a) 4
(b)
5 410
110

4 4
810 3.210

4 4
610 2.410

4 4
410 1.610

4 PLAXIS 3D
210 810
3
PLAXIS 3D
Springbed model
Springbed model
Hyperbolic moment-rotation Hyperbolic moment-rotation
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15

Figure 10: Moment-curves for 6mx18m footing at V/Vuo = 0.3 (a) moment about shorter axis (b)
moment about longer axis

With the option of staged calculation process in PLAXIS 3D, it is possible to extract the data of

footing effective width at each stage of moment increment. Figure 11 shows the variation of footing

effective width with moment for 6mx18m footing at different V/Vuo in terms of normalized

parameter Mn vs B’/B obtained using PLAXIS 3D. The normalized plots show that once the footing

detaches from the underlying soil the reduction in available footing width is linear when the moment

is applied either about shorter or longer axis. Figure 12 shows the variation of effective width at

ultimate moment in terms of normalized parameter, Mn vs B’/B for 6mx18m footing. The plots

exhibit a very interesting observation that when moment is applied about the shorter axis the effective
width at ultimate moment condition predicted by PLAXIS 3D is greater than the spring-bed model

(Fig. 12a) whereas the trend reverses when moment is applied about the longer axis (Fig 12b).

(a) (b)
0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

M/VB
M/VB

0.3 0.3

0.2 V/Vuo = 0.1 0.2 V/Vuo = 0.1


V/Vuo = 0.2 V/Vuo = 0.2
0.1 V/Vuo = 0.3 0.1 V/Vuo = 0.3
V/Vuo = 0.4 V/Vuo = 0.4
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

B'/B B'/B

Figure 11: M/VB vs B’/B curves (from PLAXIS 3D analysis) for 6mx18m footing with V/Vuo = 0.1,
0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 and moment applied (a) about short axis and (b) about long axis

(a) (b)
0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
Mult/VB
Mult/VB

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
Spring-bed model Spring-bed model
PLAXIS 3D PLAXIS 3D
0 0
0 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.48 0.6 0 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.48 0.6
B'/B B'/B

Figure 12: Mult/VB vs B’/B curves for 6mx18m footing at ultimate moment obtained using spring-bed
model and PLAXIS 3D analysis at Vn = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 with moment about (a) short axis (b)
long axis

In order to further interpret the results, Mn vs B’/B plots obtained using PLAXIS 3D analysis at

different V/Vuo values were compared for footings with L/B = 1,2,3 and 5, as shown in Fig. 13.

Interestingly, the plots in Figures 13.a show that the variation of effective width at V/Vuo = 0.1 is

almost identical for different footing sizes. Similar observations were made for plots at V/Vuo = 0.2

(Fig 13.b), 0.3 and 0.4 both for moment about short axis and long axis. These observations clearly

demonstrate that nonlinear moment-rotation behaviour and effective width of the footing can be
outlined with more clarity in terms of normalized parameters of Vn, Mn and B’/B. It also highlights

the how important it is to consider the effect of footing L/B and direction of the applied moment.

Based on these results equations were developed to evaluate moment-rotation response, lift-off

moment (MLO) and effective width of the footing.

(a) (b)
0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
M/VB

M/VB
0.2 0.2
6mx6m
6mx6m
6mx12m
0.1 0.1 6mx12m
6mx18m 6mx18m
6mx30m 6mx30m
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

B'/B B'/B

Figure 13: M/VB vs B’/B curves for 6mx6m, 6mx12m, 6mx18 and 6mx30m footings with moment
applied about short axis for (a) V/Vuo = 0.1 (b) V/Vuo = 0.2

5 Evaluation of lift-off moment

When Shallow foundations are subjected to moment they uplift and partially lose contact with the

underlying soil. Soil behaviour is highly nonlinear once the loss of contact occurs. Results in the

preceding sections demonstrate that the moment-rotation relationship for footings is highly nonlinear.

Ravi and Pender (2015) discuss discrepancies in the existing solutions for evaluation of lift-off

moment and failure to account for factors such as V/Vuo, L/B and undrained shear strength. The

importance of these factors is highlighted in this paper as well. So based on the moment-rotation plots

obtained using PLAXIS 3D analysis a new equation is proposed to evaluate lift-off moment

accounting for nonlinear soil behaviour and the effects V/V uo, L/B and undrained shear strength. The

new equation is

V 
0.0086  uo  +0.118
M LO
=  V  (6)
VL   Vuo  
1+α  V  
  
Where, α is a constant depending on L/B ratio shown in Table 2

Table 2: Values of constant α

L/B 1 2 3 4 5

α 0 0.006 0.013 0.020 0.024

6 Evaluation of effective width of the footing


The spring-bed model solution for calculating the effective width of the footing is given by

2M
BM  B  (7)
V

Figure 12 shows the plot of Mult/VB vs B’B data at ultimate moment condition obtained using

Equation 1 and PLAXIS 3D analysis for 6mx18 and 6mx30m footings with moment applied about

short and long axis respectively. From Fig 12.a, when the moment is applied about the short axis

effective width of the footing obtained using Equation 1 is considerably lower than the value obtained

from PLAXIS 3D analysis. On the contrary when moment is applied about long axis the effective

width obtained using Equation 1 is much higher than the PLAXIS 3D value. These inconsistencies

clearly indicate that footing behaviour depends on the direction of the applied moment. Also the Eq 1

is based on linear-elastic moment-rotation response and ignores the effects of parameters such as

shear strength of the soil, soil non-linearity, V/Vuo and L/B ratios, etc. The importance of these

parameters is proven from the results presented in this study and using equation can be misleading. In

order overcome these shortcomings, a simple equation is proposed based on the data obtained using

PLAXIS 3D finite element analysis (Figs 11 to 13). This equation is deduced based on normalised

approach (V/Vuo, M/VB) and incorporates the effects of soil non-linearity, shear strength, etc. Since

the numerical model is validated using field experimental results, the results from PLAXIS 3D

analysis are highly reliable. The equation is presented below

B'  M 
 x y   (8)
B  VB 

V
Where, ‘x’ and ‘y’ are dimensionless constants, x  2.86 and y  .053ln  0.43 .
Vuo
The proposed equation 8 is valid from the stage when the footing detaches from the underlying soil.

The advantage of this equation is one can estimate the actual available footing area at any given

moment value beyond the footing lift-off stage and not just at ultimate moment condition. The

6mx6m footing model was also analysed at embedment depths of 1m and 2m for V/Vuo = 0.1, 0.2,

0.3 and 0.4 vertical load cases. Although the depth of embedment has considerable impact on the

moment-rotation response it was found that M/VB vs B’/B curves were marginally affected. Hence

Equation 2 is applicable for the embedded footings as well.

7 Modified hyperbolic moment-rotation curve

Algie (2011) performed a series of large scale field experiments (snap-back tests) on 0.4mx2m long

strip footings embedded 0.4m in the residual soil. Based on his studies Algie (2011) proposed

hyperbolic moment-rotation equation (Eq.5). However when the results from this equation were

compared with PLAXIS 3D analysis data it was evident that this equation fails to account for the

effects of L/B, undrained shear strength and direction of the applied moment. The effect of these

parameters is imperative as discussed in the previous sections. So the hyperbolic equation was

modified using non-dimensionless constants and a new equation was proposed accounting for the

effects of L/B, undrained shear strength and the direction of the applied moment. The new equation is

given by


M
  (9)

k  M ult

Where, M = moment; θ = foundation rotation; k = initial rotational stiffness of the foundation; α =


1.05; and β is a function of V/Vuo and L/B given by

1  2V 
   0.6  (10)
  Vuo 
L L
Where,   2  1 , for moment applied about short axis and    0.0160 , for moment applied
B B
about longer axis
The computed moment-rotation curves from this equation were in agreement with the results from

PLAXIS 3D analysis as evident in Fig 14.

4 5
710 1.110

4 4
5.610 8.810

Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)

4 4
4.210 6.610

4 4
2.810 4.410

4 4
1.410 2.210
PLAXIS 3D PLAXIS 3D
Modified hyperbolic solution Modified hyperbolic solution
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 30 60 90 120 150

Rotation (milli rad) Rotation (milli rad)

Figure 14: Comparison of moment-rotation curves obtained using PLAXIS 3D and modified
hyperbolic moment-rotation equation (a) 6mx18m footing at V/Vuo = 0.3 and moment about short axis
and (b) 6mx30m footing at V/Vuo = 0.4 and moment about longer axis

8 Conclusions

A footing model with interface element was developed in PLAXIS 3D software to predict the

nonlinear moment-rotation response of footings resting on clay surface subjected to moment and fixed

vertical load. The loss of contact between the underside of the footing and the underlying soil was

successfully modelled in PLAXIS 3D and the predicted moment-rotation response was in good

agreement with experimental results (Algie, 2011). With successful model validation, the response of

footings with different L/B ratios subjected to moment and a fixed vertical load was further

investigated. The nature of contact pressure distribution on the underside of the footing and available

effective width post footing uplift was carefully studied. Based on the interpretation of results

following conclusions were drawn

 Nonlinear SFSI can be successfully modelled in PLAXIS 3D with the choice of

appropriate constitutive soil model and correct mesh size.

 The moment-rotation response of footings is highly nonlinear especially once there is

a partial loss of contact between the footing and underlying soil.


 L/B ratio and direction of the applied moment can have a significant effect on the

performance of the footing

 For footings subjected to moment at a fixed vertical load, assessment of footing

performance using normalized approach (Vn, Mn) is more effective than

superimposing the effects of vertical load and moment separately

 Evaluation of lift-off moment (MLO) and footing effective width is necessary to

estimate the reduction in bearing strength post footing uplift and loss of contact. The

existing solutions for footing effective width fail to account the effects of soil non-

linearity, L/B ratio and the direction of applied moment.

 Hyperbolic equation proposed by Pender and Algie (2011) was modified with

dimensionless constants and new equation was proposed to predict the static moment-

rotation behavior of surface footings on clay.

 New equations are proposed for the evaluation of lift-off moment (MLO) and footing

effective width (B’) in terms of normalized parameters (Vn and Mn) taking into

account the effects of L/B ratio, direction of the applied moment, nonlinear soil

behavior, etc

References

Algie T.B. (2011). “Nonlinear rotational behavior of shallow foundations on cohesive soil.” PhD thesis,
University of Auckland, Auckland.
Allotey N.M, Naggar H.M. (2003). “Analytical moment-rotation curves for rigid foundations based on a
Winkler model.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering., 23, 67-381.
Bartlett P.E. (1976). “Foundation rocking on a clay soil.” Master’s thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Gazetas G. (1991). “Foundation Vibrations”. In Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2 nd Edition,


H.Y.Fang, Springer., 553 – 593.
Gourvenec, S. (2007). “Shape effects on the capacity of rectangular footings under general loading.”
Geotechnique., 57, No.8, 637- 646.

Hutchinson T.C. and Harden C.W. (2009). “Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation modelling of shallow,


rocking-dominated footings.” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute., 25, No 2;
277-300.
Kondner R.L. (1963). “Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive soils.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE., 89 (SM1), 115 – 143.

Obrzud, R. and Truty, A. (2013). “The hardening soil model – A practical guidebook.” ZSoil.PC, Report:
100701.

Pender, M.J. (2007). “Seismic design and performance of surface foundations.” In Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Pitilakis, K.D., Springer., 217-243.

PLAXIS 3D Material Models Manual. (2013). PLAXIS B V, Netherlands.

PLAXIS 3D Reference Manual (2013). PLAXIS B.V., Netherlands.

Raychowdhury, R. and Hutchinson, T.C. (2009). “Performance evaluation of a nonlinear Winkler-based shallow
foundation model using centrifuge test results.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics., 38,
679-698.

Salimath, R.S. and Pender, M.J. (2015). “Plaxis modelling of moment-rotation curves for shallow foundations
on clay at constant vertical load.” 12th ANZ Geomechanics Conference, Wellington., Ref: 089.

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A. and Bonnier, P.G. (1999). “The hardening soil model: Formulation and verification.”
Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics – 10 Years of PLAXIS, Balkema, Rotterdam., ISBN 90 5809
040

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen