Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement For Shallow Foundation

Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement for Shallow Foundation
A Thesis Submitted
In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Yeasir Ahmed Fahim

ID: 14306093
Md. Osman Ali

ID: 14306084
to the
Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering and Technology (CEAT)
IUBAT—International University of Business Agriculture and Technology
Date: September, 2019

Approval
The dissertation entitled “Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement for Shallow
Foundation”, by Yeasir Ahmed Fahim and Md. Osman Ali has been approved
fulfilling the requirements for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering.
____________________________
Supervisor
Sarder Mohammad Yahya
Senior Lecturer
IUBAT— International University of Business Agriculture and Technology
____________________________
Head of the Department
Prof. Dr. Engr. Md. Monirul Islam

Chair
IUBAT— International University of Business Agriculture and Technology
i
Author’s Declaration
We are Yeasir Ahmed Fahim with ID# 14306093, and Md. Osman Ali with ID#
14306084 declaring that this Thesis report on “Finite Element Analysis of Elastic
Settlement for Shallow Foundation” has only been prepared under the supervision of
Sarder Mohammad Yahya for the fulfillment of the degree Bachelor of Science in
Civil Engineering (BSCE). It has not been prepared for any other purpose, reward, or
presentation and has not been submitted by us for any Degree, Diploma, Title or
Recognition before.
___________________________
Yeasir Ahmed Fahim

ID# 14306093
September, 2019
___________________________
Md. Osman Ali
ID# 14306084
September, 2019
ii
Acknowledgements
All praises to the Almighty Allah for giving us the strength to complete the research
paper in fulfilling the CEN 488 successfully. In the process of completion of our
course and preparing this dissertation, we would like to pay our gratitude to some
personnel for their immense help and enormous cooperation.
We would like to show our gratitude Mr. Sarder Mohammad Yahya, Senior

Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, IUBAT for providing us all necessary
guidelines and for his constant supervision and inspiration through the progress of the
work. He helped us in all the aspects of our research. It was his continuous guidance
that enables us to complete this thesis. Working under his supervision has been a
wonderful experience.
Many people, especially our classmates, have made valuable comment suggestions on
this thesis which gave us an inspiration to improve our thesis.
Finally, we thank all the people for their help directly and indirectly to complete our
thesis report.
iii
Abstract
The settlement analysis of shallow foundation has always been one of the subjects of
major interest in soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Elastic settlement is
necessary to design against both bearing capacity failure and excessive settlement.
This parametric analysis was done to identify the variation of elastic settlement due to
change in normal stress, footing size, foundation type, column size etc. This thesis
was done to gain more knowledge on the behavior of elastic settlement of various
shallow foundations on the basis of parametric analysis by using Finite Element
Analysis Software ‘’Geostru’’. The case study of this thesis is based on three soil tests
report from Uttara, Mohammadpur and Mymensingh. We have used twelve boreholes
from these different locations. In this research, applied normal stresses 300 KN /m 2to
1500 KN /m 2. The result shows average value of elastic settlement 59.17 mm (at
center) and 13.74 mm (at corner) for maximum normal stress 1500 KN /m2 .
Keywords: Elastic settlement, Finite element method (FEM), Shallow foundation.
iv
Table of Contents
Approval I
Author’s Declaration II
Acknowledgements III
Abstract IV
Table of Contents V
List of Figures XI
List of Tables X
List of Notations XI
List of Abbreviations XII
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objectives of the Study 2
1.4 Organization of the Thesis 3
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Finite Element Analysis (FEM) 4
2.3 Some ideas or Research on Elastic Settlement 5
2.4 Foundation types 6
2.4.1 Shallow foundations 6
2.4.2 Advantage of using Shallow foundations 7
2.4.3 Disadvantage of using Shallow foundation 7
2.4.4 Spread or isolated Foundations 7
2.4.5 Strip footing 8
2.4.6 Combined foundations 8
v
2.4.7 Continuous (wall) foundations 8
2.4.8 Mat foundations 8
2.4.9 Clay behavior and properties 10
2.4.10 Clay mineral 10
2.4.11 Settlements 10
2.4.12 immediate settlement 10
2.4.13 Consolidation settlements 10
2.4.14 Secondary compression settlements 10
2.4.15 Distortion settlements 11
2.5 Methods of elastic settlement calculation 11
2.5.1 Methods based on observed settlements 11
2.5.2 Settlements calculation based on the theory of elasticity 15
2.6 General information of GEOSTRU software 16
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 FEA simulation for settlement using Geostru software 18
3.3 Software Modeling 18
3.3.1 Borehole18
3.3.2 Soil database 19
3.3.3 Footing parameters 19
3.3.4 Soil stratigraphy 20
3.3.5 Soil layer model 21
Chapter 4: RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Background 22
4.2 Soil tests report 1 (Software dialog box) 22
4.2.1 Soil tests report 1 (Software dialog box Cont’d) 23
vi
4.3 Soil tests report 2 (Software dialog box) 29
4.3.3 Soil test report 2 (Software dialog box Cont’d) 35
4.4.1 Soil test report 3 (Software dialog box) 37
4.4.5 Average settlement 45
4.4.6 Average settlement (cont’d) 46
4.4.7 Average settlement (cont’d) 47
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION
5.1 General 54
5.2 Discussion for simulation 54
REFERENCES 55
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Strip footing of shallow foundation 7

Figure 2: Common types of mat foundations 9
Figure 3: Variation of Se/Se (1) versus B/B1 12
Figure 4: Variation of Se/Se (1) versus B/B1 13
Figure 5: Terzaghi and Peck’s (1948, 1967) recommendation for allowable bearing
capacity for 25-mm settlement variation with B and N60 13
Figure 6: Bazaraa’s plate load test results—plot of q/Se (1) versus N60 14
Figure 7: Elastic settlement of shallow foundation 14
Figure 8: Elastic settlement of flexible and rigid foundations 15
Figure 9: Main window of the Geostru software 16
Figure 10: Soil test reports 18
Figure 11: Soil database dialog box 19
Figure 12: footing parameters dialog box 19
Figure 13: Soil stratigraphy dialog box 20
Figure 14: Soil layer model dialog box 20
Figure 15: footing parameters21
Figure 16: Soil stratigraphy 21
Figure 17: Model of soil layer 22
viii
Figure30: footing parameters 31
Figure31: Soil stratigraphy 32
Figure32: Model of soil layer 32
Figure 1.1: Average settlement graph 45
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Modulus of elasticity 16

Table 2: Poisson’s ratio 16
Table 3: Soil test No 01 48
Table 6: Soil test No. 01. Average settlement table 51
x
List of Notations
Cc Compression Index
Cr Recompression Index
Cs Swelling Index
C Cohesion Soil
CU Un-drained Compression Index

Cv Coefficient of consolidation
e0 Initial Void Ratio
∆e Increment of Void ratio
Gs Specific gravity of soil
H Depth of compressible clay layer
P0′ Effective overburden pressure
Pc′ Pre-consolidation pressure
Tv Time factor of consolidation
U(%) Avg. Degree of Consolidation
Γd Dry density of soil
Γs Saturated density of soil
∆P Increment of overburden pressure

φ Angle of internal friction
Ψ Angle of dilatancy
E Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
G Shear Modulus
xi
List of Abbreviations
SS- Soil Structure Interaction

FEA - Finite Element Analysis
ML- Low Plasticity Silt
LL- Liquid Limit
PL- Plastic Limit
PI- Plasticity Index
NDD- Normal-Dry Density
OCC- Over Consolidated Clay
NCC- Normal Consolidated Clay
CD- Consolidated Drained test
CU- Consolidated Undrained test
UU- Unconsolidated-Undrained test
OMC- Optimum moisture content
FOS- Factor of safety
USDA- United states department of agriculture
ASTM- American Society for Testing and Materials
xii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In order to evaluate the suitability of a foundation or earth structure, it is necessary to

design against both bearing capacity failure and excessive settlement. For foundations
on cohesive soils, the principal design criterion is typically the latter. The control of
expected settlements within the limits considered tolerable for the structure. As a result,
once allowable foundation displacements have been established, the estimate of a total
settlement over the service life of the structure is a major factor in the choice of
foundation design. Foundation settlements must be estimated with great care for
buildings, bridges, towers, power plants, and similar high-cost structures. For structures
such as fills, earth dams, levees, braced sheeting and retaining walls a greater margin of
error in the settlements can usually be tolerated. Except for occasional happy
coincidences, soil settlement computations are only best estimates of the deformation to
expect when a load is applied. During settlement the soil transitions from the current
body (or self-weight) stress state to a new one under the additionally applied load. The
stress change ∆q from this added load produces a time-dependent accumulation of
particle rolling, sliding, crashing, and elastic distortions in a limited influence zone
beneath the loaded area. The statistical accumulation of movements in the direction of
interest is the settlement. In the vertical direction, the settlement will be defined as ∆H.
In a most analysis of geotechnical problems, simple elastic or elastic-plastic models are
used to represent the behaviour of soil. However, in the analysis of shallow foundation,
this simplification can result in inaccurate, predicted settlement profiles. As computer-
based numerical and finite element analysis (FEA) techniques are becoming more
advanced different soils and non-linear stiffness profiles can be modelled. This means
that ground movements for complex geotechnical problems. The study of the soil-
structure interaction in buildings is commonly neglected in superstructure calculations,
in other words, the supports, or the foundations, in such structural programs are
considered fixed, leading to rigidity equal to infinity. Therefore, the soil-structure
interaction in building design has been the objective of a defended and on-going B.Sc.
thesis to be summarized. By and large, the original study was done in both numerical as
well as experimental points of view. In the numerical point of view, several methods
1
can be used to model the problem, and, among them, the most common software adopts
the Finite Element Method (FEM). In the present case, the experimental focus was
directed towards the settlement and load measurements in footing foundations of the
structure and their measurement. Problems were encountered and hindered somehow
the interpretation of some of the experimental data. Actually, the soil-structure
interaction was considered in an uncoupled manner, with a well-known geotechnical
engineering software “Geostru” was adopted to simulate the overall system.
Comparative results are presented in terms of vertical loads with and without soil-
structure interaction effects. That means, assuming normal structural design procedures
(generally done in Bangladesh) and assuming a more realistically approach, which
incorporates foundation spring flexibility or its displacement during the building
construction. Foundation loads are used to design the foundation considering the
allowable settlement criteria. The same information is used as input for finite element
analysis in soil structure interaction simulation models in “Geostru”. For accurate
modelling all soil layer properties are necessary. The main goal of the study is to
acquire an understanding of analysis of settlement prediction of the shallow foundation
through FEA simulation software like “Geostru”.
1.2 Problem Statement
Analysis of elastic or immediate settlement of semi-flexible shallow foundations and

the comparison of the analysis in both conventional and numerical methods. This
analysis is done by Finite Element Analysis method using “Geostru” software and in
theoretical conventional method with settlement theory of elasticity.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The specific objectives of this dissertation are as follows:

-To determine the elastic settlement on sandy, silty and clayey soils with software
analysis.
-To gain more knowledge on the behavior of the elastic settlement of various shallow
foundations on the basis of a parametric analysis.
1.4 Organization of the Thesis
2
The thesis is organized into chapters. Each chapter will provide an overview and will
follow with number of subsections.
Chapter 1: Introduction, this chapter presents all the context of the research and set
objectives. Chapter 2: Literature Review, this chapter provides Definitions and
terminology, a brief discussion about settlement, soil properties, FEM analysis, soil
modeling and footing foundation design. Chapter 3: Research Methodology, this
chapter provides the settlement calculation and foundation design process in FEA
simulation and conventional method are discussed in this chapter. Chapter 4: Results,
Analysis and Discussion, this chapter deals with the problem statement, foundation
design and settlement, FEM model in ‘GEOSTRU’ software, FEA simulation of
settlement. Chapter 5: Conclusions, the final chapter of the dissertation draws
conclusions on the research findings, contribution to the existing knowledge, limitations
of the study and finally ends with future research directions.
Chapter 2
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Calculation of foundation settlements are a basic and fundamental component of

foundation engineering and are a common procedure performed by practicing
geotechnical engineers. The deformation behavior of shallow foundations deriving their
support from primarily granular particulate soil deposits such as sands and gravels
largely controls the final design of structures resting on these materials. This is largely
due to the fact that the limit equilibrium behavior, i.e. the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations resting on granular deposits is typically of such a large magnitude, that the
allowable settlement criteria established by the engineer will control the overall design.
2.2 Finite Element Analysis (FEM)

Finite element method has, in recent years, been widely used as a powerful tool in the
analysis of engineering problems. In this numerical analysis, the behavior of the actual
material is approximated with that of an idealized material that deforms in accordance
with some constitutive relationships. Therefore, the choice of an appropriate
constitutive model that adequately describes the behavior of the material plays an
important role in the accuracy and reliability of the numerical predictions. During the
past few decades, several constitutive models have been developed for various
materials. Most of these models involve the determination of material parameters, many
of which have little or no physical meaning (Shin and Pande, 2000). Despite
considerable complexities of constitutive theories, due to the erratic and complex nature
of some materials such as soils, rocks, composites etc. none of the existing constitutive
models can completely describe the real behavior of these materials under various stress
paths and loading conditions. At the beginning, the method is developed as an extension
of a matrix method for the analysis of structural engineering problems. However, later it
has also been recognized as the most powerful method for analyzing problems in other
fields of engineering, such as fluid mechanics, soil mechanics, rock mechanics, heat
flow, etc. The generation of its application coupled with the availability of high-speed
electronic digital computer has put the finite element method in a wide range of use.
A numerical analysis program is reasonable when the problem cannot be solved by

conventional methods based on analytic solutions. The basic idea in the finite element
4
method is to divide a complicated model into a finite number of elements for which
stresses and strains can be solved numerically. Without going deep into the world of
FEM, it can be mentioned that FEM is a technique to find approximate numerical
solutions for partial differential equations as well for integral equations. This can be
done by eliminating differential equations completely or rendering it to ordinary
differential equations which can then be solved by other techniques (Euler’s method
etc.). The basic concept of the FEM is that a complicated model of a body or structure
is divided into a number of smaller elements. Those elements are then connected by
nodes. At every node, there are one or more degrees of freedom where the number of
functions is described. By solving the values at the nodes, the stress and strains in every
element can be calculated.
2.3 Some ideas or Research on Elastic Settlement
Author Year Research on
Use of the standard penetration test for

Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. 1967 estimating settlements of shallow
Foundations.
Berardi, R. 1991 Settlement of shallow foundations in sands:

Jamiolkowsk
Strain influence diagrams for settlement

Lee, J., Eun, J., Prezzi 2008 estimation of both isolated and multiple
footings in sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering,
ASCE, 134(4): 417-427.
Settlements of shallow foundations on

Papadopoulos, B.P 1992 cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 118(3): 377-393.
5
Settlement of strip footings on sand: Journal
D’Appolonia, Brissette 1970 of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 96(2): 754-762.
2.4 Foundation types:
Foundation is a supporting portion of a structure located below the structure and it is

supported only by soil or rock. It is mainly used to support the structure and then
distribute the weight of that structure, so it settles to the ground evenly rather than
unevenly.
Each individual foundation must be sized so that the maximum soil bearing pressure
does not exceed the allowable soil bearing capacity of the under lying soil mass. In
addition, footing settlement must not exceed tolerable limits established for differential
and total settlement.
There are two main types of foundations:
-Shallow Foundations.
-Deep Foundations.
2.4.1 Shallow foundations

To perform satisfactory, shallow foundations must have two main characteristics:
They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that supports them. They
cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The term excessive is relative,
because the degree of settlement allowed for a structure depends on several
considerations). The most common structural foundation in today’s construction
industry is the shallow foundation. Shallow foundation is those founded near to the
finished ground surface; generally, where the foundation depth (Df) is less than or equal
6
to (3-4) of the foundation depth. These are not strict rules, but merely guide lines;
basically, if surface loading or other surface conditions will affect the bearing capacity
of a foundation it is then shallow.
Shallow foundation includes spread foundation (carrying a single column) combined

foundation, continuous foundation and mat (raft) foundation.
Shallow foundation is used when surface soils are sufficiently strong and stiff to
support the imposed loads.
2.4.2 Advantage of using Shallow foundations
-Simple construction procedure.

-Affordable cost.
-Available material (mostly concrete).
-Does not need experts (labors).
2.4.3 Disadvantage of using Shallow foundation
-Settlement.
-Foundation is subjected to pull off out, torsion, and moment.
-Irregular ground surface (slope).
2.4.4 Spread or isolated Foundations
Isolated footing is a foundation that carries a single column. It distributes the column
load to an area of soil around the column. Spread foundation may be circular, square, or
rectangular. They usually consist of a block or slab of uniform thickness, but they may
be stepped or hunched if they are required to spread the load from a heavy column.
Figure 1.2 shows spread foundations.
2.4.5 Strip Footing
A strip footing is provided for a load-bearing wall. A strip footing is also provided for a
row of columns which are so closely spaced that their spread footings overlap or nearly
touch each other. In such a case, it is more economical to provide a strip footing than to
7
provide a number of spread footings in one line. A strip footing is also known as
continuous footing.
Figure 1: Strip footing of shallow foundation
2.4.6 Combined Foundations

Combined foundation combines the loads from two or more columns to the soil. It may
be rectangular, trapezoidal or cantilever.
2.4.7 Continuous (wall) Foundations

One dimensional action, cantilevering out on each side of the wall. Continuous footings
are used to support a line of loads, rather due a load-bearing wall, or if a line of columns
need supporting where columns positions are so close that individual foundation
inappropriate.
2.4.8 Mat foundations

Raft foundation is a combined footing that may cover the entire area under a structure
supporting several columns and walls. Mat foundations are sometimes preferred for
soils that have low load-bearing capacities but that will have to support high column
and/or wall loads. Under some conditions, spread footings would have to cover more
than half the building area, and mat foundations might be more economical. Several
types of mat foundations are currently used. Some of common types are shown
schematically in figure 1.1 and include the following:
a. Flat plate, the mat is of a uniform thickness.

b. Flat plate thickened under columns.
c. Beams and slab, the beams run both ways, and the columns are located at the
intersection of the beams.
8
d. Flat plates with pedestals.
e. Slab with basement walls as a part of the mat, the walls act as stiffeners for the
mat.
Mats may be supported by piles. The piles help in reducing the settlement of a structure
built over highly compressible soil. Where the water table is high, mats are often placed
over piles to control buoyancy.
Section Section Section
a) Plan b) Plan c) Plan
Section Section
d) Plan e) Plan
Figure 2: Common types of mat foundations
2.4.9 Clay behavior and properties

A brief description of the clay soils will be specified because it is of importance to
understand the behavior of clay soils.
2.4.10 Clay mineral
9
The term clay can be explained as a material composed of a mass of small mineral
particles, which in association with water exhibits the property of plasticity. The
geotechnical properties of clay materials depend largely on their chemical structure.
Their chemical structure is composed of extremely small crystalline particles of one or
more members of a small group of minerals that are commonly known as clay
minerals. Studies of the crystal structure of clay minerals lead to a better
understanding of the behavior of clays under different loading conditions.
2.4.11 Settlements
The settlement on the ground is the sum of four parts; elastic/immediate settlement,
consolidation settlement, secondary compression settlement and distortion settlement.
2.4.12 Immediate Settlement

This is commonly referred to as initial or undrained settlement and take place on
account of shear strains which occur instantaneously following the application of the
load. If the clay is saturated, settlements take place at constant volume caused by shear
strains beneath the loaded area. In the case of embankment founded on soft clay, the
immediate settlement is coterminous with the placing of the fill and as such of no
further consequence.
2.4.13 Consolidation Settlement

Consolidation settlement (or primary consolidation settlement) happens when an
increase in the effective vertical stress, occurs which gives rise to a decrease in the
volume of the voids. If the soil is saturated (Sr=100%) reduction in volume occurs
only if some of the pore water is squeezed out of the soil. The volume of solids
remains constant because the compression of individual particles is negligible.
(Coduto 1999).
2.4.14 Secondary Compression Settlement

Secondary compression is supposed to start after the primary consolidation ceases
which is after the excess pore water pressure approaches zero, but it has not to be zero.
Secondary compression happens because of particle reorientation, creep and
breakdown of organic materials. This part of consolidation does not require the
removal of pore water. Secondary compression takes place mostly in highly plastic
clays, organic soils and sanitary landfills. It is negligible in sands and gravels.
10
Secondary compression does not depend on changes in vertical effective stress.
(Coduto 1999)
2.4.15 Distortion Settlement

Distortion settlement is a kind of settlement that develops from lateral movements of
the soil because of changes in vertical effective stress. This happens when a heavy
load is applied over a small area which resulting in a lateral deformation.
2.5 Methods of Elastic Settlement Calculation

Various methods to calculate the elastic settlement available at the present time can be
divided into three general categories. They are as follows:
-Methods Based on Observed Settlement of Structures and Full-Scale Prototypes
These methods are empirical in nature and are correlated with the results of the
standard in-situ tests such as the standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone
penetration test (CPT). They include procedures developed by Terzaghi and Peck
(1948, 1967), Meyerhof (1956, 1965), DeBeer and Martens (1957), Hough (1969),
Peck and Bazaraa (1969), and Burland and Burbidge (1985).
-Semi-Empirical Methods
These methods are based on a combination of field observations and some theoretical
studies. They include, for example, the procedures outlined by Schmertmann (1970),
Schmertmann et al. (1978), Briaud (2007), and Akbas and Kulhawy(2009).
-Methods Based on Theoretical Relationships Derived from the Theory of Elasticity
The relationships for settlement calculation available in this category contain the term
modulus of elasticity (Es). The general outlines for some of these methods are given in
the following sections.
2.5.1 METHODS BASED ON OBSERVED SETTLEMENT

TERZAGHI AND PECK’S METHOD:
11
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed the following empirical relationship between the
settlement (Se) of a prototype foundation measuring B×B in plan and the settlement of a
test plate [Se(1)] measuring B1×B1 loaded to the same intensity.
Although a full-sized footing can be used for a load test, the normal practice is to
employ a plate of the order of 0.3 m to 1 m. Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) provided the
results of 14 sets of load settlement tests. This is shown in Figure 1 along with the plot
of Eq. (1). For these tests, B1 was 0.35 m for circular plates and 0.32 m for square
plates. It is obvious from Figure 1 that, although the general trend is correct, represents
approximately the lower limit of the field test results. Bazaraa (1967) also provided
several field test results. Figure 2 shows the plot of Se/Se (1) versus B/B1 for all tests
results provide by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) and Bazaraa (1967) as compiled by
D’Appolonia et al. (1970). The overall results with the expanded data base are similar
to those in Figure 1 as they r
Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967) proposed a correlation for the allowable bearing
capacity, standard penetration number (N60), and the width of the foundation (B)
corresponding to a 25 -mm settlement based on the observation.
Where, CW = ground water table correction

CD = correction for depth of embedment = 1 – (Df/4B)
Df = depth of embedment
12
Figure 3: Variation of Se/Se (1) versus B/B1 from the load settlement results of Bjerrum
and Eggestad (1963) (Note: B1 = 0.36 m for circular plates and 0.32 m for square
plates).
Figure 4: Variation of Se/Se (1) versus B/B1 based on the data of Bjerrum and Eggestad
(1963) and Bazaraa (1967) (adapted from D’Appolonia et al., 1970).
The magnitude of CW is equal to 1.0 if the depth of water table is greater than or equal
to 2B below the foundation, and it is equal to 2.0 if the depth of water table is less than
or equal to B below the foundation.
Figure 5: Terzaghi and Peck’s (1948, 1967) recommendation for allowable bearing
capacity for 25-mm settlement variation with B and N60.
13
Figure 6: Bazaraa’s plate load test results—plot of q/Se (1) versus N60.
Bazaraa (1967) plotted a large number of plate load test results (B1 = 0.3 m) in the form
of q/Se(1) versus N60 as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the relationship is very
conservative. In fact, q/Se(1) versus N60/0.5 will more closely represent the lower limiting
condition.
2.5.2 SETTLEMENT CALCULATION ELASTIC SETTLEMENT BASED ON

THE THEORY OF ELASTICITY
The elastic settlement of a shallow foundation can be estimated by using the
theory of elasticity. Using Hooke’s law,
14
Figure 7: Elastic settlement of shallow foundation
Se pydz
s
Where,
Se = Elastic settlement
Es= Modulus of
elasticity of soil
H = thickness of
the soil layer
μs= Poisson′s ratio
of the soil.
Δpx, Δpy, Δpz=Stress increase due to the net applied foundation load in the
x, y, and z, directions, respectively theoretically, if the depth of foundation
Df= 0, H = ∞, and the foundation is perfectly flexible.
Figure 8: Elastic settlement of flexible and rigid foundations

m1 = L/B
B = width of foundation
15
L = length of foundation
Table 1: Modulus of elasticity
Type of Soil Modulus of Elasticity Modulus of Elasticity (E)

(E) (psi) (kN/m2)
Soft clay 250-500 1380-3450
Hard clay 850-2000 5865-13,800
Loose sand 1500-4000 10,350-27,600
Dense sand 5000-10,000 34,500-69,000
Table 2: Poisson’s ratio

Type of Soil Poisson's ratio (µs)
2.6 Loose sand 0.2-0.4
Medium sand 0.25-0.4
Dense sand 0.3-0.45
Silty sand 0.2-0.4
Soft clay 0.15-0.25
Medium clay 0.2-0.5
General information of Geostru software
GEOSTRU is one of the most well-known software brands in the world when it comes

to highly advanced software products and services in the following fields: civil
engineering, geotechnical engineering and geology, geomechanics, geophysics, in situ
soil testing, hydrology.
Figure 09: Main window of the Geostru software
16
In the input program the soil model can be created. Soil database, footing parameters,
soil stratigraphy Soil layer model, loading, are all available in the toolbar. In the next
step, the user enters the material data for each material in the material sets. In material
sets, all information; name, material model, material type, permeability, unit weight,
stiffness and strength must all be entered before continuing to further steps.
The calculation subprogram can be used to define calculation steps. The steps can be
defined in the same order as it would be done in reality.
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The process of settlement analysis of simplified semi-flexible shallow foundation is

discussed in this chapter. Models are illustrated. Then the immediate settlement was
determined. The comparisons of the settlements between in conventional method and
numerical method were done. “Geostru” software is used to model the foundation. The
methods of the conventional method and analytical method are both discussed briefly.
A lot of missing information is assumed and default values from the software are used
in these cases.
3.2 FEA simulation for settlement using GEOSTRU software
Defining the scope of Software

study Collecting soil report modeling
17
Results analysis and Data analysis and Data entry
discussion interpretation
3.3 Software Modeling
Creating new Defining soil stratigraphy Computation

project
Defining Footing Defining Footing size Elastic

type parameter settlement
Develop a workable approach for analysis of elastic settlement of shallow foundation.

Determine of elastic settlement by using geotechnical engineering software
‘GEOSTRU’.
3.3.1 Borehole
Information on the soil layers and the water table is entered in so-called boreholes.
Boreholes are locations in the drawing area at which the information on the location of
soil layers and the water table is given. If multiple boreholes are defined, Geostru
software automatically interpolates between the boreholes and derives the position of
the soil layers from the borehole information.
In the current example, two soil layers is present, and only a single borehole was
needed to define the soil layer. In order to define the borehole, The Borehole tool is
selected from the Model toolbar. Then borehole boundaries are selected. The water
level is selected in the water level box.
18
Figure 10: Soil tests report
3.3.2 Soil database:
Figure 11: Soil database dialog box

Geostru software FOUNDATION Input program is started. A Create/Open Project
dialog box appeared in which an existing project or create a new one is selected. The
new project is chosen and the OK button is clicked. After collecting the soil test report
then give necessary data like types of the soil, Angle of shearing resistance to this box.
The first step in every analysis is to set the basic parameters of the element model.
3.3.3 Footing parameters
19
Figure 12: footing parameters dialog box
We click on footing system data then this dialog box appeared and mention different
parameters like foundation type, foundation length, width, foundation base right/
foundation base left, footing height, column height etc.
3.3.4 Soil stratigraphy
Figure 13: Soil stratigraphy dialog box
Then we click soil stratigraphy and give the thickness of different soil layer after that
automatically a soil layer model has been created.
3.3.5 Model of the soil layer
20
Figure 14: Soil layer model dialog box
After giving all the thickness in soil stratigraphy dialog box, now automatically a soil
layer model created.
Chapter 4
RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
21
In this chapter, the calculation and results are represented in a sequential manner. First
the FEM analysis is performed to get the simulation. Geostru software model
information’s, calculation stages and simulation results are discussed. Then theoretical
calculation and results are represented briefly.
4.2 Soil test report 1 (Software dialog box)
Figure 15: footing parameters
A Create/Open Project dialog box appeared in which an existing project or create a new
one is selected. The new project is chosen and the OK button is clicked. After collecting
the soil test report then give necessary data like mention different parameters like
foundation type, foundation length, width, foundation base right/ foundation base left,
footing height, column height etc.
Figure 16: Soil Stratigraphy

Soil stratigraphy shows the thickness of different soil layer after that automatically a soil layer
model has been created.
22
Figure 17: Model of soil layer
After putting all the necessary value, the model of soil layer looks like this where we
can see the footing and also the different soil layer.
Soil test no. 1 (Footing Size 9’.6’’)
After we create soil layer model, we input pressures in the footing randomly. Then we
got some values of elastic settlement at center and corner (mm). These are shown
elastic settlement in the soil layer due to pressures.
23
Elastic settlement at center (mm) and corner (mm)
We open an excel sheet and provide the values of elastic settlement at center and corner
(mm). After putting all the values of elastic settlement we got this graph which is
showing how much settlement in soil layer at center and corner (mm) where we provide
the units in mm.
4.2.1 Soil test report 1 (Software dialog box Cont’d)
Figure 18: footing parameters
24
25
the units in mm.
Figure 21: Footing Parameters
26
27
Figure 24: Footing parameters
28
Soil test no. 1 (Footing Size 9’)
29
the units in mm.
4.3 Soil test report 2 (Software dialog box)
30
Soil test no. 2 (Footing Size 9’.6”)
31
the units in mm.
32
33
the units in mm.
34

35
the units in mm.
36
37
the units in mm.
4.4.1 Soil test report 3 (Software dialog box)
38
39
the units in mm.
40
41
the units in mm.
42
43
the units in mm.
44
45
the units in mm.
4.4.5 Average Settlement:
At first, we create a table in an excel sheet and take the all footing size and the total
average values of elastic settlement at center and corner (mm) for per footing size
where we can determine the total average elastic settlement at corner and center (mm)
for all four boreholes and the soil layer.
46
Figure 1.1: Average settlement graph
After we got all total average values for elastic settlement at center and corner (mm) in
soil layer then we input all values in an excel sheet then we got this graph which is look
like that where we can determine the total average elastic settlement at center and
corner (mm).
4.4.6 Average Settlement (Cont’d):
47
Figure1.2: Average settlement graph
corner (mm)
4.4.7 Average Settlement (Cont’d):
48
Figure1.3: Average settlement graph
corner (mm)
49
Pressure Elastic settlement Elastic settlement
(KN/m2) at center (mm) at corner (mm)
Footing Size Hf (m)
300 21.9 5.21

9’ 0.81 500 37.4 8.9
700 52.89 12.59
1000 76.13 18.12
1500 114.87 27.34
300 23.58 5.64
500 40.35 9.65
9’-2’’ 0.83 700 52.12 13.67

1000 82.28 19.68
1500 124.2 29.71
300 23.58 5.62
500 40.34 9.62
9’-6’’ 0.86 700 57.11 13.62

1000 82.26 19.62
1500 124.17 29.62
300 21.86 5.18
500 37.32 8.84
9’-8’’ 0.89 700 52.78 12.5

1000 75.98 18
1500 114.64 27.16
4.4.8 Table 03: Soil test No. 01
Soil test No.
50
02 Hf (m) Pressure Elastic Elastic settlement at
(KN/m2) settlement at corner (mm)
Footing Size center (mm)
300 28.31 5.31

9’ 0.81 500 36.52 9.51
700 53.78 13.69
1000 77.31 19.21
1500 114.76 26.34
300 24.32 5.61
500 42.43 10
9’-2’’ 0.83 700 56.41 15.67

1000 84.82 20.12
1500 125.12 30
300 25.52 6.6
500 42.43 10.15
9’-6’’ 0.86 700 52.12 15.72

1000 88.62 21.12
1500 127.71 32.13
300 22.38 4.13
500 36.21 9.28
9’-8’’ 0.89 700 51.38 12.5

1000 76.58 18
1500 112.34 25.16
4.4.10 Soil test No. 03: Table No 05
51
Pressure Elastic Elastic settlement at
(KN/m2) settlement at corner (mm)
Footing Size Hf (m)
center (mm)
300 22.91 5.31

9’ 0.81 500 38.04 9.91
700 51.79 12.23
1000 73.31 19.21
1500 117.62 29.34
300 24.52 5.82
500 42.32 10.21
9’-2’’ 0.83 700 59.21 15.56

1000 81.82 20
1500 127.12 31.21
300 24.32 5.28
500 41.23 10.12
9’-6’’ 0.86 700 54.21 13.62

1000 80.62 20
1500 125.23 28.26
300 20.32 5.21
500 35.23 8.28
9’-8’’ 0.89 700 51.68 11.42

1000 75.32 18
1500 113.32 25.62
52
4.4.11 Soil test No. 01 (Average settlement Table No. 6)
Footing Size Hf (m) Average elastic settlement Average elastic

at center (mm) settlement at corner
(mm)
9’ 0.81 60.63 14.43
9’-2’’ 0.83 64.51 15.67
9’-6’’ 0.86 65.49 15.62
9’-8’’ 0.89 60.52 14.34
Average elastic settlement Average elastic
53
Footing Size Hf (m) at center (mm) settlement at corner
(mm)
9’ 0.81 60.73 15.2
9’-2’’ 0.83 66.94 16.56
9’-6’’ 0.86 65.12 15.45
9’-8’’ 0.89 59.17 13.74
Average elastic settlement Average elastic

at center (mm) settlement at corner
Footing Size Hf (m) (mm)
9’ 0.81 62.13 14.62
9’-2’’ 0.83 66.92 16.25
9’-6’’ 0.86 65.28 15.14
9’-8’’ 0.89 60.77 13.81
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
The study deals with a simplified structure model and the soil strata which mean the
accuracy of the model is not completely reliable. Lack of much necessary information
for FEA modeling confines us to assume appropriate parameters and software default
values. However, the comparison between the conventional method and the simulation
method has great significance. Relationships for elastic settlement using the theory of
elasticity will be equally as good as the other methods, provided a realistic value of Es is
54
adopted. This can be accomplished using the iteration method suggested by Berardi and
Lancellotta (1991).
This study serves the purpose of
-A comprehensive understanding of FEA software.
-Elastic settlement of strip footing analysis.

The simulation and manual method have almost similar results, GEOSTRU produce
slightly less conservative results than the conventional method. The approximation of
the manual method and the missing of the necessary information for simulation cause
a little variation. But with the increase of load the variation of the result increased. The
simulation of the fine mesh is time-consuming. It would be very time consuming for
bigger geometry.
The convergence study shows that finite element analysis in Geostru foundation
converges. So, the data found from finite element analysis, would be helpful for
practical use. As the simulation is less time consuming when necessary data is present
it can be helpful in getting an idea about soil-structure interaction behavior.
5.2 Discussion for Simulation
-We have analyzed strip footing and simulated and identified that the settlement is less
in the footing size 9’.8’’
-The less settlement is useful for the foundation of the building, so we consider it to be
preferable.
REFERENCES
55
Paice GM, Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Finite element modeling of settlements on
spatially random soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 1996;122(9):777–9.
Akbas, S.O. & Kulhawy, F.H. 2009. Axial compression of footings in cohesionless
soils. 1: Load settlement behavior. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
123(11): 1562-1574.
Berardi, R. & Lancellotta, R. 1991. Stiffness of granular soil from field performance.
Geotechnique, 41(1): 149-157.
Briaud, J.L. 2007. Spread footing on sand: load settlement curve approach. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geo Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 133(8): 905-920.
Cambou B. Application of first-order uncertainty analysis in the finite element method

in linear elasticity. In: Proceeding of the second International Conference on
Application of Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering. Aachen,
West Germany; 1975. p. 67–87.
Burland, J.B. & Burbidge, M.C. 1985. Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel.
Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, 78 (1): 1325-1381.
Nour A, Laouami N, Tabbouche B. Seismic behavior of heterogeneous soil profile via

stochastic finite element analysis. In: Proceeding of the 15th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geo-Technical Engineering, Lessons learned from Recent
Strong Earthquakes, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference,
Istambul (Turkey) 25 August Ed. Ansal A. 2001. p. 173–6.
56

Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement For Shallow Foundation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement For Shallow Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement for Shallow Foundation

Yeasir Ahmed Fahim

Md. Osman Ali

Date: September, 2019

Prof. Dr. Engr. Md. Monirul Islam

Yeasir Ahmed Fahim

We would like to show our gratitude Mr. Sarder Mohammad Yahya, Senior

Keywords: Elastic settlement, Finite element method (FEM), Shallow foundation.

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter 4: RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1: Strip footing of shallow foundation 7

Table 1: Modulus of elasticity 16

CU Un-drained Compression Index

∆P Increment of overburden pressure

SS- Soil Structure Interaction

In order to evaluate the suitability of a foundation or earth structure, it is necessary to

1.2 Problem Statement

Analysis of elastic or immediate settlement of semi-flexible shallow foundations and

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of this dissertation are as follows:

1.4 Organization of the Thesis

Calculation of foundation settlements are a basic and fundamental component of

2.2 Finite Element Analysis (FEM)

A numerical analysis program is reasonable when the problem cannot be solved by

2.3 Some ideas or Research on Elastic Settlement

Author Year Research on

Use of the standard penetration test for

Berardi, R. 1991 Settlement of shallow foundations in sands:

Strain influence diagrams for settlement

Settlements of shallow foundations on

2.4 Foundation types:

Foundation is a supporting portion of a structure located below the structure and it is

There are two main types of foundations:

2.4.1 Shallow foundations

Shallow foundation includes spread foundation (carrying a single column) combined

2.4.2 Advantage of using Shallow foundations

-Simple construction procedure.

2.4.3 Disadvantage of using Shallow foundation

2.4.4 Spread or isolated Foundations

2.4.5 Strip Footing

Figure 1: Strip footing of shallow foundation

2.4.6 Combined Foundations

2.4.7 Continuous (wall) Foundations

2.4.8 Mat foundations

a. Flat plate, the mat is of a uniform thickness.

Section Section Section

a) Plan b) Plan c) Plan

Figure 2: Common types of mat foundations

2.4.9 Clay behavior and properties

2.4.10 Clay mineral

2.4.12 Immediate Settlement

2.4.13 Consolidation Settlement

2.4.14 Secondary Compression Settlement

2.4.15 Distortion Settlement

2.5 Methods of Elastic Settlement Calculation

-Methods Based on Observed Settlement of Structures and Full-Scale Prototypes

-Methods Based on Theoretical Relationships Derived from the Theory of Elasticity

2.5.1 METHODS BASED ON OBSERVED SETTLEMENT

Where, CW = ground water table correction

2.5.2 SETTLEMENT CALCULATION ELASTIC SETTLEMENT BASED ON

the soil layer