PROJECT GEO 2

CIVL:980 Applied Finite Element

Analysis for Civil Engineers

Submitted by:- Group 13

Sulav Raj Gautam (6223667)

Suman Budhathoki (6483239)
Pramod Thebe (6304680)
Ahmed Zakaria (6454793)
Gurpreet Singh (6224143)
 Executive Summary
This project is mainly focused on the analysis of the performance of rigid and smooth surface
footing. Finite element method as well as strand 7 software are used for this analysis.
Concrete with Young’s Modulus 12.5*103 MPa and Poisson’s ratio 0.13 was considered as
the material for the geotechnical structure i.e. footing. Original ground soil is assumed to be
homogenous and uniform clay having strength Cu =40 kPa, and Eu = 15000 kPa. This soil is
then cement treated to form cement treatment clay. Increased strength of this cement treated
clay is calculated by using the equation Cu=50(1+4Aw), where Aw is the percentage of
cement by weight. Footing performance is analysed for both these soils by taking different
values of Aw.

FEM analysis of the foundation performance is carried out in undrained situation. The
undrained behaviour of the untreated soil as well as cement treated soil obtained from the
tests is modelled through the linear elastic perfect plastic model. Undrained shear strength
value Cu is computed with the help of provided data. Poisson’s ratio value of 0.49 is assumed
in the calculation of different soil parameters. Computed values of different soil parameters
are used to develop the stress and strain curves for soil and concrete material. Analysis of
performance of shallow foundation and the influence of cement on the strength of the soil is
carried out with the help of strand 7. Because of the footing being symmetrical, only the half
of the width of the footing is considered in this analysis. Necessary results and conclusion are
drawn from the load displacement curve
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

2.0 The problem.........................................................................................................................1

3.0 Finite Element Method.........................................................................................................2

4.0 Constitutive Models for Soil................................................................................................2

4.1 Determination of soil parameters cu, q, ε 0 ,E and G........................................................3

4.1.1 Calculation of cu & E..................................................................................................3

4.1.2 Calculation of G.........................................................................................................3

4.2 Shear Stress vs Shear Strain of soil..................................................................................4

4.3 Volumetric Strain Vs Shear Stress for Soil......................................................................6

4.4 Shear stress and shear strain curve for Concrete..............................................................8

4.5 Volumetric Strain – Shear Strain Curve for Concrete......................................................9

5.0 Description of formulation of the FEM analysis Model......................................................9

5.1 Geometrical FEM Model................................................................................................10

5.1.1 Boundary..................................................................................................................10

5.1.2 Boundary Size..........................................................................................................10

5.2 FEM Model Discretisation.............................................................................................13

5.3 Boundary Condition.......................................................................................................13

5.4 Material Properties.........................................................................................................15

5.5 Loading...........................................................................................................................16

5.6 Solver..............................................................................................................................17

5.7 Results............................................................................................................................19

6.0 Summary of Results...........................................................................................................20

6.1 Results for original untreated clay..................................................................................20

6.2 Results for cement treated clay.......................................................................................24

6.2.1 Result for Aw =10%..................................................................................................24

 6.2.2 Result for Aw =20%..................................................................................................27

6.2.2 Result for Aw =25%..................................................................................................30

6.2.3 Result for Aw =30%..................................................................................................32

7.0 Analysis and Graphical Representation of Results............................................................35

7.1 Comparison of FEM Results to Conventional Methods.................................................35

7.1.1 Untreated Clay.........................................................................................................36

7.1.2 Cement Treated Clay...............................................................................................37

7.2 Analysis of the Comparison of FEM Results to Conventional Methods.......................44

7.3 Discussion and analysis of amount of cement on footing performance.........................44

8.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................44

List of Tables:

Table 1: Value of Cu with respect to Aw...................................................................................3

Table 2: Value of q for different values of Aw..........................................................................4
Table 3:Soil parameters for original untreated clay.................................................................15
Table 4: Soil parameters for original untreated clay................................................................15
Table 5: Accurate and FEM Bearing capacity for untreated clay............................................36
Table 6: Accurate and FEM Bearing capacity for Aw=10%...................................................38
Table 7: Accurate and FEM bearing capacity for Aw=20%....................................................39
Table 8: Accurate and FEM bearing capacity for Aw=25%....................................................41
Table 9: Accurate and FEM bearing capacity for Aw=30%....................................................42

List of Figures
Figure 1: Rigid and Smooth Footing..........................................................................................1
Figure 2: Relationship between cu and Aw................................................................................3
Figure 3: Shear stress vs shear strain for untreated clay............................................................5
Figure 4: Shear stress vs shear strain for cement treated clay with varying Aw.......................5
Figure 5: Shear strain vs volumetric strain for soil....................................................................7
Figure 6: Shear Stress and strain curves for concrete................................................................8
Figure 7: Shear strain and volumetric strain curve for concrete................................................9
Figure 8: Units in strand7 FEM...............................................................................................10
Figure 9: Creating node 4.........................................................................................................11
Figure 10: Subdividing the whole boundary into two half......................................................11
Figure 11: Moving first column of nodes by -1m to get the first distance of 1m in X axis.....12
Figure 12: Final movement of last row of nodes by 1m to get the desired mesh....................12
Figure 13: Discretised model...................................................................................................13
Figure 14: Restraining of nodes...............................................................................................13
Figure 15: Restraining of vertical nodes at the edges..............................................................14
Figure 16: Restraining the bottom nodes.................................................................................14
Figure 17: Material Properties.................................................................................................16
Figure 18: Application of load.................................................................................................17
Figure 19: FEM model with load and boundary condition......................................................17
Figure 20: Nonlinear Static Analysis of soil model.................................................................18
Figure 21: Load Increment for solving the soil model.............................................................18
Figure 22: Solver analysis with no errors................................................................................19
Figure 23: Node reaction for each load increment for untreated clay................................20
Figure 24: Node reaction value with respect to each increment for untreated clay.................20
Figure 25: Stress distribution underneath the footing for load increment of 0.1% for untreated
clay...........................................................................................................................................21
Figure 26: Vertical displacement of the ground surface for load increment of 0.1% for
untreated clay...........................................................................................................................21
Figure 27: Strain of the soil underneath the footing for load increment 0.1% for untreated clay
..................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 28: Horizontal displacement of soil at load increment of 100% for untreated clay.....22
Figure 29: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for untreated clay..........23
Figure 30: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for untreated clay..............23
Figure 31: Node reaction at for each load increment foe Aw=10%........................................24
Figure 32: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment foe Aw=10%.................25
Figure 33: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=10%.....................25
Figure 34: Vertical displacement of soil at load increment of 100% for Aw=10%.................26
Figure 35: Stress distribution over soil for load increment of 100% for Aw=10%.................26
Figure 36: Strain distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=10%................................27
Figure 37: Node reaction at for each load increment for Aw=20%.........................................27
Figure 38: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=20%.................28
Figure 39: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=20%.....................28
Figure 40: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=20%................................29
Figure 41: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=20%................................29
Figure 42: Node reaction at for each load increment for Aw=25%.........................................30
Figure 43: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=25%.....................30
Figure 44: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=25%.................31
Figure 45: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=25%................................31
Figure 46: Strain distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=25%................................32
Figure 47: Node reaction at for each load increment for Aw=30%.........................................32
Figure 48: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=30%.....................33
Figure 49: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=30%.................33
Figure 50: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=30%................................34
Figure 51: Strain distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=30%................................34
Figure 52: Load P vs displacement graph for untreated clay..................................................37
Figure 53: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for untreated clay..................................37
Figure 54: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw= 10%........................................................38
Figure 55: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw= 20%........................................................40
Figure 56: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=20%.........................................40
Figure 57: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw= 25%........................................................41
Figure 58: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=25%.........................................42
Figure 59: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw=30%.........................................................43
Figure 60: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=30%.........................................43
1.0 Introduction
Considering the fact that every geotechnical material such as clay, sand, gravel, rock mass
and rock are nonlinear with plastic deformation, the solution of these geotechnical problems
are time consuming and even more complex. Therefore, different software is used to find the
near to accurate solution for the geotechnical problems. One of the best software for this is
the Strand 7. Therefore, strand 7 is used in this project to find the performance of foundation
with the aid of Finite Element method. The footing is made of concrete having the Young’s
modulus 12.5 x103 MPa and Poisson’s ratio 0.13. The soil with the Poisson’s ratio of 0.49 is
considered for analysis. The soil considered in this project are untreated clay and cement
treated clay. The performance of footing for both these soils are analysed. The influence of
amount of cement in the cement treated soil is also investigated. Analysis of Undrained
condition of the soil is carried out. Linear elastic perfect plastic model is used to model the
undrained behaviour of soil underneath the footing.

2.0 The problem

The undrained behaviour of original and cement treated soil is suggested for analysis. Four
tests are carried out with different cement amount; Aw = 10%, 20%, 25% and 30%. The
undrained behaviour is modelled by the linear elastic perfect plastic model for original and
treated soil.

The two types of foundations: Rigid and Smooth Footing and Rigid and Embedded Footing
were given to choose for this project. We have chosen Rigid and Smooth Footing as shown in
figure below:

Figure 1: Rigid and Smooth Footing

The geotechnical structure, as shown in figure 1, is made of concrete. For the computation,
concrete is assumed to act linearly with Young’s modulus being 12.5x103 MPa and Poisson’s
ratio being 0.13. Foundation stands on the soil, defined as cement treated clay. The behavior
of the foundation is analyzed via Strand7, using finite element method.

1
In this project, we are asked to evaluate the performance of the foundation (i.e. load
displacement response curve), analyse the effect of strength improvement by cement
treatment (model parameters for Aw, stress-strain curve for the soil and concrete material) and
investigate the influence on the performance of a shallow foundation by cementation.

The soil parameters: Poisson’s ratio, Young’s Modulus and equation to estimate cohesion of
the soil is given in question. Soil is assumed to be homogenous and uniform.

In linear elastic perfect plastic model, the soil is assumed to be linear elastic as the gradient of
ε d ~q curve is 3G. Shear strength (C u) is the limit and if q < C u, soil behaves as linear elastic
whereas if the soil reaches the shear stress limit C u, soil fails. Thus, q > C u is not allowed.
Maximum value of q =Cu. If shear modulus G is not constant but dependent on the stress of
soil, pore pressure associated with loading vary for fully drained soil. Change in effective
stress is different from that of total stress. Many FEM packages uses the total stress-strain
relationship in the current practice. Hence, different soil parameters are measured from fully
undrained condition.

3.0 Finite Element Method

FEM is a mathematical/computational tool to perform engineering analysis. It has a great
application in the geotechnical analysis, which involves dividing a huge system into a finite
number of elements connected to each nodal point considering that the system is in
equilibrium. This process of discretising the model helps to achieve more precise result with
greater accuracy. Determination of unknown nodal displacement, solving the displacements
at the nodes considering the equilibrium condition and providing the displacement,
calculation of stress and strain at any point of interest are some of the salient features of finite
element method.

The physical process of the system is mainly dependent of geometry of system, boundary
condition, material property and loading condition. The main advantage of using FEM is that
we can relate soil parameters with an algebraic equation. Computer software such as
strand7 is based on the stiffness method. The main reason for using this method is that
force and displacement can be directly related with each other as F=kδ .

4.0 Constitutive Models for Soil

Constitutive model describes the change in strain due to change in stress state of an element.
The undrained behaviour of the soil is modelled using linear elastic perfect plastic model.

2
Different soil parameters such as Young’s Modulus E, Poisson’s ratio v and undrained shear
strength cu are calculated.

4.1 Determination of soil parameters cu, q, ε 0 , E and G

4.1.1 Calculation of cu & E
In this project two conditions for the soil type is given. One is the untreated clay with Cu
40KPa and E 15000 KPa. Another type of soil is cement treated clay where certain amount of
cement is used to increase the strength of the soil. Cu for the cement treated clay is calculated
by Cu=50(1+4Aw), where Aw is the percentage of cement by weight. The value of Aw is
taken as 10%, 20%, 25% & 30%. The value of E is taken constant for all the condition as
15000 KPa.

Aw (%) Cu (KPa)
0 50
5 60
10 70
15 80
20 90
25 100
30 110
Table 1: Value of Cu with respect to Aw
120

100

80
Cu (KPa)

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Aw (%)

Figure 2: Relationship between cu and Aw

4.1.2 Calculation of G
The shear modulus of the soil G can be calculated as

3
 E
G=
2(1+ʋ)

Where ʋ is the Poisson’s ratio for soil which is taken as 0.490.

For the constant value of E 15000 KPa and ʋ=0.490 , the value of G is also constant which is
5033.55 KPa.

4.2 Shear Stress vs Shear Strain of soil

Soil behaves linearly elastic for the region q < Cu and the soil fails when it reach q> Cu. In
perfect plastic region the value of q is calculated as maximum values of Cu.

For untreated clay:

q= Cu = 40 KPa.

For q < Cu, q = 3G εd ; q = 15100.65 εd

As the value of G is constant for every soil type in this problem, q = 15100.65 εd governs for
cement treated clay as well. Only the value of q in perfect plastic region will be changed as
there is different Cu for untreated clay.

The value of q for perfect plastic region for untreated clay for different Cu is shown in the
table below.

Percentage of cement (Aw) Strength (Cu) Shear stress (q)

10% 70 70
20% 90 90
25% 100 100
30% 110 110
Table 2: Value of q for different values of Aw
The shear stress vs shear strain graph is presented below:

4
 45

40

35

30
Shear Stress (KPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Shear strain

Figure 3: Shear stress vs shear strain for untreated clay

120

100

80
Shear Stress (KPa)

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Shear Strain

Aw=10% Aw=20% Aw=25% Aw=30%

Figure 4: Shear stress vs shear strain for cement treated clay with varying Aw

5
4.3 Volumetric Strain Vs Shear Stress for Soil
We have two equations to determine the volumetric strain of the soil:

P’
εv = K

2(1+ϑ )
k= G
3(1−2 ϑ )

For untreated clay with Cu=40 KPa

P’ = 40/ 3 =13.33 KPa

2(1+0.49)5033.55
K= = 250000 Kpa
3(1−2∗0.49)

13.33
εv = 250000 = 0.000053

Similarly, for cement treated clay with Aw=10%, Cu=70 KPa

P’=70/3 = 23.33 KPa

K=250000 KPa

23.33
εv = 250000 = 0.000093

For cement treated clay with Aw=20%, Cu=90 KPa

P’=90/3 = 30 KPa

K=250000 KPa

30
εv = 250000 = 0.00012

For cement treated clay with Aw=25%, Cu=100 KPa

P’=100/3 = 33.33 KPa

K=250000 KPa

33.33
εv = 250000 = 0.00013

for cement treated clay with Aw=30%, Cu=110 KPa

6
P’=110/3 = 36.67 KPa

K=250000 KPa

36.67
εv = 250000 = 0.00014

Soil and its failure εd value:

Untreated soil Soil fails at εd =0.002, εv / εd=0.000053/0.002=0.026. Therefore, ᶓv =0.026ᶓd

Cement treated soil with Aw=10%: Soil fails at εd =0.004, εv / εd=0.000093/0.004=0.023.

Therefore, ᶓv =0.023ᶓd

Cement treated soil with Aw=20%: Soil fails at εd =0.005, εv / εd=0.00012/0.005=0.024.

Therefore, ᶓv =0.024ᶓd

Cement treated soil with Aw=25%: Soil fails at εd =0.006, εv / εd=0.00013/0.006=0.021.

Therefore, ᶓv =0.021ᶓd

Cement treated soil with Aw=30%: Soil fails at εd =0.007, εv / εd=0.00014/0.007=0.02.

Therefore, ᶓv =0.020ᶓd

These relation of εv and εd are used to plot the graph of volumetric strain vs shear strain. The
graph is presented below:
Volumetric Strain, εv

0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4

Shear Strain, εd
Untreated soil Aw=10% Aw=20%
Aw=25% Aw=30%

7
 Figure 5: Shear strain vs volumetric strain for soil
4.4 Shear stress and shear strain curve for Concrete
For Concrete, E= 12.5*10^3 MPa i.e. E = 12.5 *106 KPa and Poisson’s ratio υ = 0.13

E 12.5∗106
Gc= = = 5.53*106 KPa
2(1+v ) 2(1+0.13)

We have, qc=3G ᶓd

=3*5.53*106 ᶓd

Therefore,

qc =16.59*106 ᶓd

With the help of this equation, stress and strain curve can be plotted which is presented
below:

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000
Shear Stress q (KPa)

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012

Shear Strain

Figure 6: Shear Stress and strain curves for concrete

8
4.5 Volumetric Strain – Shear Strain Curve for Concrete
Mean effective stress, for concrete, P’ is calculated as;

qc
P’= = 16.59*106 εd /3= 5.53*106 εd
3

E 12.5∗106
K= =
3(1−2 ʋ) 3(1−2∗0.13)
= 5.63*106

5.53∗106 ε d
Volumetric strain εv =P’/k= = 0.982 εd
5.63∗106

Therefore, the equation relating shear strain to volumetric strain of concrete is given by
εv=0.982 εd

Volumetric Strain vs Shear strain graph is shown below:

0.025

0.02
Volumetric Strain, εv

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Shear Strain, εd

Figure 7: Shear strain and volumetric strain curve for concrete

5.0 Description of formulation of the FEM analysis Model

FEM analysis of the footing is carried out using the strand7 software with the following data:

9
 The undrained shear strength, Cu of the untreated soil is 40 kPa.
 Poisson’s ratio of the soil is 0.49
 The Young’s modulus of the soil is taken as 15000 KPa

5.1 Geometrical FEM Model

5.1.1 Boundary
The geometry of the footing as well as the loading are symmetrical, so only the half portion
of the structure is considered for the analysis.

5.1.2 Boundary Size

The side of boundary is supposed to be WB ≥ 4 ~ 6B and depth HB ≥3B for identifying the
bearing capacity while HB ≥5B for settlement determination. So, we consider a ratio of 0.5B,
0.5B, 0.75B, 0.75B, 1.5B towards X axis and 0.5B, 0.75B, 1.25B, B, 2B towards Y axis for
building boundary for our geometrical model.

The distance in between the nodes for the width of footing=2m is tabulated below:

X axis 1 1 1.5 1.5 3

Y axis 1 1.5 2.5 2 4

At first the 4 nodes of the boundary were created at (0,0,0), (8,0,0), (0,-11,0) and (8,-11,0)
using Quad 4 element and later it was subdivided and nodes were moved to required distance
to form a mesh of above mentioned dimensions. Figure below shows step by step of this
process.

10
Figure 8: Units in strand7 FEM

Figure 9: Creating node 4

11
 Figure 10: Subdividing the whole boundary into two half.

Figure 11: Moving first column of nodes by -1m to get the first distance of 1m in X axis

12
 Figure 12: Final movement of last row of nodes by 1m to get the desired mesh
5.2 FEM Model Discretisation
To discretise the model, whole model was subdivided into 4 equal parts using tool/subdivide
using Quad 8 elements. After subdividing, the mesh was cleaned to delete unwanted nodes.
In this problem, the effect of load from the footing will be more near to the footing. So, the
elements near to the footing are finitely divided.

13
 Figure 13: Discretised model
5.3 Boundary Condition
Since there are no horizontal displacements at both the vertical axes at the edges, u=0 is
assigned for every node in these axes, i.e. X axis is restrained. Also, there is no horizontal as
well as vertical displacements at the bottom of the model so, both X and Y axis are restrained
for nodes at the bottom. Restraining is done by going through attribute/node/ restraints after
selecting the desired nodes. Figure below shows the restraining of the side and bottom nodes.

Figure 14: Restraining of nodes

14
Figure 15: Restraining of vertical nodes at the edges

Figure 16: Restraining the bottom nodes

15
5.4 Material Properties
In this step, property for the plate element is assigned. The material property is different for
the untreated clay and cement treated clay as there is change in the value of undrained
strength Cu.

2 D plane strain element is selected as material property and an isotropic material is selected
as material type for both untreated and cement treated clay. The corresponding value of
Poisson’s ratio and Young’s Modulus E is taken for each soil type. Mohr Coulomb yield
criteria is selected with friction angle equals to zero which eventually behave as the Tresca
model in strand 7. The corresponding value of cohesion for each layer is taken from the table
and the material property is now assigned to each layer.

Original untreated clay

Cohesion (Cu) 40 KPa

Young’s Modulus € 15000 KPa
Friction Angle(Φ) 0
Poisson’s Ratio (ʋ) 0.49
Table 3:Soil parameters for original untreated clay

Cement treated clay

Cu=50(1+4Aw)

Percentage of cement Undrained Young’s Friction Poisson’s

by weight (Aw) strength (Cu) Modulus ( E ) Angle(Φ) Ratio (ʋ)
10% 70 KPa 15000 KPa 0 0.49
20% 90 KPa 15000 KPa 0 0.49
25% 100 KPa 15000 KPa 0 0.49
30% 110 KPa 15000 KPa 0 0.49

Table 4: Soil parameters for original untreated clay

16
 Figure 17: Material Properties

5.5 Loading
For the application of load, either load or displacement can be applied. Here, since the footing
is rigid, we control load by applying the displacement. Displacement of -0.2m is applied and
is controlled by giving load increments. This load is applied from attribute/node /restraints/
and apply load coefficient in Y axis. The simulation stops at 𝛅= 0.1D. The strand 7 view of
this loading is shown in the figure below.

17
 Figure 18: Application of load

Figure 19: FEM model with load and boundary condition

5.6 Solver
This problem/model is solved using non-linear analysis. Through Solver/ Non-linear statics,
this problem can be solved by adding the load increment into it. Nonlinear material is
selected through the solver. The following load increments are used in our solution:

0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%,
100%

18
 Figure 20: Nonlinear Static Analysis of soil model

Figure 21: Load Increment for solving the soil model

19
 Figure 22: Solver analysis with no errors

5.7 Results
Result file can be obtained from the result tab in strand 7. The values obtained from FEM
analysis is compared with the theoretical values. The result from both the analysis should
show almost similar values. Trial and error method is adopted to generate accurate results.

To compare the influence of cement in the strength of cement treated soil, the strand 7 model
is created for different percentage of cement in the soil and hence different soil parameter i.e.
Cu. Cu is calculated from the given equation 50(1+4A w). We have taken the percentage of
cement by weight, Aw as 10%, 20%, 25% & 30%. The value of Young’s modulus is assumed
to be constant i.e. E= 15000 KPa. The footing performance on this cement treated clay is then
analysed. All the results obtained from the computations in each case are summarized below
in the summary of results.

20
6.0 Summary of Results
6.1 Results for original untreated clay
To analyse the model more efficiently, different graphs are generated from the obtained
results. The graph of reaction at nodes for each load increment, stress of soil underneath the
footing vertical settlement of the ground surface, horizontal settlement of the ground surface,
strain of the soil underneath the footing are generated with the help of results obtained from
strand 7.

Figure 23: Node reaction for each load increment for untreated clay

Figure 24: Node reaction value with respect to each increment for untreated clay

21
 Figure 25: Stress distribution underneath the footing for load increment of 0.1% for
untreated clay

Figure 26: Vertical displacement of the ground surface for load increment of 0.1% for
untreated clay

22
Figure 27: Strain of the soil underneath the footing for load increment 0.1% for untreated
clay

Figure 28: Horizontal displacement of soil at load increment of 100% for untreated clay

23
Figure 29: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for untreated clay

Figure 30: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for untreated clay

24
6.2 Results for cement treated clay
The parameters of cement treated clay is changed in the same soil model to analyse the result
of the behaviour of the footing in this condition. To do this, we change the properties of plate
element from attribute/plate/property type. We check the results for different values of
percentage of cement by weight, Aw . We have taken Aw as 10%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Value of E
is taken same for every value of Aw i.e. 15000KPa. The only thing that would change with
this cement percentage is the cohesion or undrained strength Cu. Cu is calculated as:

Cu = 50(1+4Aw)

6.2.1 Result for Aw =10%

To generate the result for this value of A w , Cu is taken as 70 KPa, E is taken as 15000 KPa,
friction angle is taken as zero. Figure below shows the graph of reaction at nodes for each
load increment, stress of soil underneath the footing, vertical settlement of the ground
surface, horizontal settlement of the ground surface, strain of the soil underneath the footing
which are generated using strand 7.

Figure 31: Node reaction at for each load increment foe Aw=10%

25
Figure 32: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment foe Aw=10%

Figure 33: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=10%

26
Figure 34: Vertical displacement of soil at load increment of 100% for Aw=10%

Figure 35: Stress distribution over soil for load increment of 100% for Aw=10%

27
 Figure 36: Strain distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=10%

6.2.2 Result for Aw =20%

To generate the result for this value of A w , Cu is taken as 90 KPa, E is taken as 15000 KPa,
friction angle is taken as zero. Figure below shows the graph of reaction at nodes for each
load increment, stress of soil underneath the footing, vertical settlement of the ground
surface, horizontal settlement of the ground surface, strain of the soil underneath the footing
which are generated using strand 7.

Figure 37: Node reaction at for each load increment for Aw=20%

28
Figure 38: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=20%

Figure 39: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=20%

29
Figure 40: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=20%

Figure 41: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=20%

30
6.2.2 Result for Aw =25%
To generate the result for this value of Aw , Cu is taken as 100 KPa, E is taken as 15000 KPa,
friction angle is taken as zero. Figure below shows the graph of reaction at nodes for each
load increment, stress of soil underneath the footing, vertical settlement of the ground
surface, horizontal settlement of the ground surface, strain of the soil underneath the footing
which are generated using strand 7.

Figure 42: Node reaction at for each load increment for Aw=25%

Figure 43: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=25%

31
Figure 44: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=25%

Figure 45: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=25%

32
 Figure 46: Strain distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=25%

6.2.3 Result for Aw =30%

To generate the result for this value of Aw , Cu is taken as 110 KPa, E is taken as 15000 KPa,
friction angle is taken as zero. Figure below shows the graph of reaction at nodes for each
load increment, stress of soil underneath the footing, vertical settlement of the ground
surface, horizontal settlement of the ground surface, strain of the soil underneath the footing
which are generated using strand 7.

Figure 47: Node reaction at for each load increment for Aw=30%

33
 Figure 48: Vertical displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=30%

Figure 49: Horizontal displacement of soil for each load increment for Aw=30%

34
Figure 50: Stress distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=30%

Figure 51: Strain distribution for load increment of 100% for Aw=30%

35
7.0 Analysis and Graphical Representation of Results
7.1 Comparison of FEM Results to Conventional Methods
Bearing resistance is calculated using the values from FEM analysis as well as from a
conventional method. Graph for bearing resistance vs displacement is plotted for both these
methods. Graph is plotted for original untreated clay as well as for cement treated clay i.e.
Cu=70 KPa, 90 KPa, 100 KPa and 110KPa. The values obtained from the strand 7 i.e. value
of cohesion, load increment values, bearing resistance, length computed from FEM are
tabulated.

The footing given used in the problem is the rigid footing and the soil underneath the footing
is assumed to be uniform and in an undrained situation. The ultimate bearing capacity for
convention method is given as

Pu= Nc B

where B= breadth of the footing and Nc is given as

Nc=(2+π) Cu =5.14Cu

Cu: the undrained shear strength of the soil

Similarly, ultimate Bearing capacity for footing can be computed as

Pcomputed
Nc=
Lfor FEMcomputation

L for FEM computation= 1.125m

Table and graphs with all the calculated parameters are presented below:

36
7.1.1 Untreated Clay
Cu= 40 KPa, Lfem=1.125 m, Nc accurate =5.14x40 =205.6 KPa, Nc= Pu/1.125

Nc, FEM Nc accurate

Iteration Increment Displacement Pu computed
(KPa) (KPa)

1 0.001 0.0002 1.856 1.649 205.6

2 0.005 0.001 9.284 8.252 205.6

3 0.01 0.002 18.568 16.504 205.6

4 0.025 0.005 46.420 41.262 205.6

5 0.05 0.01 91.913 81.700 205.6

6 0.1 0.02 159.588 141.856 205.6

7 0.15 0.03 184.954 164.403 205.6

8 0.20 0.04 200.004 177.781 205.6

9 0.25 0.05 209.842 186.526 205.6

10 0.30 0.06 216.295 192.262 205.6

11 0.40 0.08 222.917 198.148 205.6

12 0.50 0.10 223.409 198.585 205.6

13 0.60 0.12 223.569 198.728 205.6

14 0.70 0.14 223.659 198.808 205.6

15 0.80 0.16 223.717 198.859 205.6

16 0.90 0.18 223.757 198.895 205.6

17 1 0.20 223.788 198.922 205.6

37
 Table 5: Accurate and FEM Bearing capacity for untreated clay

250

200
Load P (KN)

150

100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement  (m)

Figure 52: Load P vs displacement graph for untreated clay

250

200
Unit bearing capacicty (KPa)

150

100 Nc FEM
Nc accurate

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement 𝛿 (m)

Figure 53: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for untreated clay

38
7.1.2 Cement Treated Clay
7.1.2.1 Cement treated clay with Aw=10%
Cement treated clay with percentage of cement by weight of 10% is taken and Cu is
calculated as Cu=50(1+4Aw). This Cu is taken for calculating the bearing capacity.

Aw=10%, Cu=70 KPa, Lfem=1.125 m, Nc=5.14x70=359.8KPa

Displacement Pu computed Nc,Fem Nc accurate
Iteration Increment
(m) (KN) (Kpa) (Kpa)
1 0.001 0.0002 1.856 1.650 359.8
2 0.005 0.001 9.284 8.252 359.8
3 0.01 0.002 18.568 16.505 359.8
4 0.025 0.005 46.42 41.262 359.8
5 0.05 0.01 92.84 82.524 359.8
6 0.1 0.02 182.226 161.979 359.8
7 0.15 0.03 256.593 228.083 359.8
8 0.2 0.04 295.296 262.485 359.8
9 0.25 0.05 318.825 283.400 359.8
10 0.3 0.06 336.588 299.189 359.8
11 0.4 0.08 360.739 320.657 359.8
12 0.5 0.1 375.732 333.984 359.8
13 0.6 0.12 385.328 342.514 359.8
14 0.7 0.14 390.171 346.819 359.8
15 0.8 0.16 390.78 347.360 359.8
16 0.9 0.18 391.045 347.596 359.8
17 1 0.2 391.204 347.737 359.8

Table 6: Accurate and FEM Bearing capacity for Aw=10%

39
 450
400
350
300
Load P (KN)

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement  (m)

Figure 54: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw= 10%

400.000

350.000

300.000
Unit bearing capacity (kPa)

250.000

200.000

150.000 Nc FEM

100.000 Nc accurate

50.000

0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement  (m)

Figure: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=10%

7.1.2.2 Cement treated clay with Aw=20%

Cement treated clay with percentage of cement by weight of 20% is taken and Cu is
calculated as Cu=50(1+4Aw). This Cu is taken for calculating the bearing capacity.

40
 Aw=20%, Cu=90 KPa, Lfem=1.125 m, Nc=5.14x90=462.6 KPa
Displacement Pucomputed Nc,Fem Nc accurate
Iteration Increment
(m) (KN) (Kpa) (Kpa)
1 0.001 0.0002 1.856 1.650 462.6
2 0.005 0.001 9.284 8.252 462.6
3 0.01 0.002 18.568 16.505 462.6
4 0.025 0.005 46.42 41.262 462.6
5 0.05 0.01 92.84 82.524 462.6
6 0.1 0.02 184.58 164.071 462.6
7 0.15 0.03 269.587 239.633 462.6
8 0.2 0.04 337.846 300.308 462.6
9 0.25 0.05 375.6 333.867 462.6
10 0.3 0.06 400.896 356.352 462.6
11 0.4 0.08 437.006 388.450 462.6
12 0.5 0.1 461.047 409.820 462.6
13 0.6 0.12 477.697 424.620 462.6
14 0.7 0.14 489.24 434.880 462.6
15 0.8 0.16 497.591 442.303 462.6
16 0.9 0.18 501.683 445.940 462.6

Table 7: Accurate and FEM bearing capacity for Aw=20%

600

500

400
Load P (KN)

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement  (m)

Figure 55: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw= 20%

41
 500.000

450.000

400.000

350.000
Unit bearing capacity (kPa)

300.000

250.000

200.000 Nc FEM

150.000 Nc accurate
100.000

50.000

0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement  (m)

Figure 56: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=20%

7.1.2.3 Cement Treated Clay with Aw=25%

Cement treated clay with percentage of cement by weight of 25% is taken and Cu is
calculated as Cu=50(1+4Aw). This Cu is taken for calculating the bearing capacity.

42
 Aw=25%, Cu=100 KPa, Lfem=1.125 m, Nc=5.14x100=514 KPa
Displacement Pucomputed Nc,Fem Nc accurate
Iteration Increment
(m) (KN) (KPa) (KPa)
1 0.001 0.0002 1.856 1.650 514
2 0.005 0.001 9.284 8.252 514
3 0.01 0.002 18.568 16.505 514
4 0.025 0.005 46.42 41.262 514
5 0.05 0.01 92.84 82.524 514
6 0.1 0.02 184.99 164.436 514
7 0.15 0.03 272.374 242.110 514
8 0.2 0.04 348.705 309.960 514
9 0.25 0.05 399.048 354.709 514
10 0.3 0.06 429.614 381.879 514
11 0.4 0.08 471.521 419.130 514
12 0.5 0.1 500.151 444.579 514
13 0.6 0.12 520.533 462.696 514
14 0.7 0.14 535.131 475.672 514
15 0.8 0.16 545.73 485.093 514
16 0.9 0.18 553.685 492.164 514

Table 8: Accurate and FEM bearing capacity for Aw=25%

600

500

400
Load P (KN)

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement  (m)

Figure 57: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw= 25%

43
 600.000

500.000
Unit bearing capacity (kPa)

400.000

300.000

200.000 Nc FEM

Nc accurate
100.000

0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement  (m)

Figure 58: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=25%

7.1.2.4 Cement Treated Clay with Aw=30%
Cement treated clay with percentage of cement by weight of 30% is taken and Cu is
calculated as Cu=50(1+4Aw). This Cu is taken for calculating the bearing capacity.

Aw=30%, Cu=110 KPa, Lfem=1.125 m, Nc=5.14x110=565.4 KPa

Displacement Pucomputed Nc,Fem Nc accurate
Iteration Increment
(m) (KN) (KPa) (KPa)
1 0.001 0.0002 1.856 1.650 565.4
2 0.005 0.001 9.284 8.252 565.4
3 0.01 0.002 18.568 16.505 565.4
4 0.025 0.005 46.42 41.262 565.4
5 0.05 0.01 92.84 82.524 565.4
6 0.1 0.02 185.338 164.745 565.4
7 0.15 0.03 274.305 243.827 565.4
8 0.2 0.04 355.279 315.804 565.4
9 0.25 0.05 418.457 371.962 565.4
10 0.3 0.06 455.714 405.079 565.4
11 0.4 0.08 503.874 447.888 565.4
12 0.5 0.1 537.287 477.588 565.4
13 0.6 0.12 561.265 498.902 565.4
14 0.7 0.14 579.065 514.724 565.4
15 0.8 0.16 592.176 526.379 565.4
16 0.9 0.18 602.106 535.205 565.4

Table 9: Accurate and FEM bearing capacity for Aw=30%

44
 700

600

500
Load P (KN)

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement  (m)

Figure 59: Load P vs displacement graph for Aw=30%

600.000

500.000
Unit bearing capacity (kPa)

400.000

300.000

Nc FEM
200.000
Nc accurate

100.000

0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement  (m)

Figure 60: Bearing capacity vs displacement graph for Aw=30%

45
7.2 Analysis of the Comparison of FEM Results to Conventional Methods
From the above graphs it is clearly seen that the bearing capacity calculated from both the
FEM method and conventional method are quite similar. There is only slight difference
between these two calculated values. We can also see that the difference between the values
calculated from these two methods increases with the increase in the value of load P. This can
be minimized by forming more finer soil model mesh.

7.3 Discussion and analysis of amount of cement on footing performance

From the above presented graph, it is clearly seen that the bearing capacity of soil increases
with treatment of cement on the soil. The bearing capacity of untreated clay is extremely less
than that of the cement treated clay. Also, we can see that the bearing capacity of the soil
increases with increase in the percentage of weight of cement Aw. As the strength is directly
related to the amount of cement, strength of whole soil increases with increase in Aw. Also,
strength Cu is directly related with bearing capacity of soil. Therefore, bearing capacity of
soil increases with increase in Cu. Hence, bearing capacity increases with increase in the
amount of cement on the footing.

8.0 Conclusions
The performance of rigid and smooth footing was evaluated with the use of strand7. The
performance of soil in undrained condition was analysed by using finite element method. The
undrained behaviour of soil was approximated by using the linear elastic perfect plastic
Mohr-Coulomb model and the result were generated to calculate different soil parameters
such as strength, bearing capacity, load, stress, strain, vertical displacement of soil under
footing and many more. These parameters were also utilized for plotting stress strain curves
for soil and for concrete material of foundation. Load displacement respond curve were
plotted for all the soil model and bearing capacity of the soil was compared. Along with
comparison of bearing capacity, influence of amount of cement on footing performance was
also analysed. Comparison of finite element method to the conventional method was also
carried out by calculating the bearing capacity from these two different methods.
Conventional method is somehow more accurate than the finite element method though there
is only little difference between the results from these two methods. Hence, we can conclude
that reasonable amount of cement is required to enhance the performance of the footing.

46