Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 261

'.

E;f
'....--

AN IMPROVED DESIGN APPROACH


FOR MAT FOUNDATION
WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS

J SYED MIZANUR RAHMAN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA

JULY, 2001

1111111111111111111111111111111111
#95531#
AN IMPROVED DESIGN APPROACH
FOR MAT FOUNDATION
WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS

A THESIS BY
SYED MIZANUR RAHMAN

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements


for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY, DHAKA.

JULY, 2001
AN IMPROVED DESIGN APPROACH
FOR MAT FOUNDATION
WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS

ATHESIS BY
SYED MIZANUR RAHMAN

Approved as to the style and content by the Examination Committee

D,~q/
Professor
ChID_
(Supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka.

Dr. Abdul Muqtadir Member


Professor (Co-supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, aka.

Dr. Md. Abdur R Member


Professor and Head
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka.

Dr. M. Shamim Z. Bosunia Member


Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka. \
'"

:'-:d.~
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Member
(External)

BUET, Dhaka
Dedicated TO

Almighty Allah
CONTENTS

List 0 f Contents I-lll

Declaration IV

Acknowledgement V

Abstract VI

List of Symbols Vll-Vlll

Chapter I INTRODUCTION I
1.1 General I

1:2 Statement of the Problem 3

1.3 Background of the Study 4

1.4 Objectives of the Present Study 6


1.5 Methodology 7

1.6 Layout of the Thesis 8

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9


2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Background of the Problem 9
2.3 Foundation Model 12
2.4 Analysis Methods 12
2.4.1 Conventional Method of Analysis 12
2.4.2 ACI Approximate Flexible Method 16
2.4.3 Comparison of Various Methods 21
2.5 Sensitivity Study of Mat Foundation 23
2.6 Mat of Non-uniform Thickness: A Choice for Economy. 24
2.7 Comparison Between Mat with Variable Thickness and Flat slab with
Drop Panels 26

(i)
Chapter 3 FINITE ELEMENT IDEALISATION OF MAT FOUNDATION 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Idealization of Mat Foundation on Winkler Model 28
3.2.1 Structural Idealization 28
3.2.2 Idealization of Soil 29
3.2.3 Selection of Element 29
3.2.4 Element Mesh Configuration 30
3.2.5 Element and Node Numbering 30
3.2.6 Modeling of Soil and Boundary Conditions 30
3.2.7 Application of Column Loads 31
3.3 Verification of Finite Element Model 31
3.4 Critical Aspects of Finite Element Model 33
3.4.1 Selection of Finite Element Mesh 33
3.4.2 Element Aspect Ratio 33
3.4.3 Effect of Column Rigidity 34

Chapter 4 COMPARATIVE STUDY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 3S


4.1 Introduction 35
4.2 Sensitivity Analysis of Mat Foundation 35
4.2.1 Effect of Modulus of Sub grade Reaction 37
4.2.2 Effect of Variable Mat Thickness 38
4.3 Summary of Parametric Analysis of Mat 43

Chapter S ANALYSIS OF MAT FOUNDATION 44


5.1 Introduction 44
5.2 Analysis of Mat foundation 44
5.2.1 Variation of Deflection 45
5.2.2 Variation of Bending Moment 46
5.2.3 Variation of Shearing Stress 47
5.2.4 Variation of Spring Reaction 48
5.3 Parametric Study on Distribution of Bending Moment of Mat
Foundation 49

(ii)
5.3.1 Summary of Variation of LIB Ratio of Mat 57
5.3.2 Summary of Variation of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 58

5.4 Discussion on the Analysis of Mat foundation 61

Chapter 6 DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION 62


6.1 Introduction 62
6.2 Difficulties in Formulating the Mat Behavior 62
6.3 General Design Requirements for Mat Foundation 64
6.3.1 Deflection Requirements for Mat foundation 64
6.3.2 Design of Mat Under Bending Moment 65
6.3.3 Design of Mat Under Shear Force 66
6.4 Design Requirements for Mat Foundation With Variable Thickness 66
6.5 A New Design Approach for Mat with Variable Thickness 68
6.6 Design Example 71
6.7 Comparison of Results with Finite Element Solution. 75
6.8 Economy of Proposed Mat With Variable Thickness 78

6.9 Remarks 80

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION 82
7.1 General 82
7.2 Findings From the Investigation 83
7.3 The Improved Design Approach For Mat with Variable Thickness 83
7.4 Recommendations for Bangladesh National Building Code. 84
7.5 Recommendations for Future Study. 85

REFERENCES 86
Appendix A: SHELL93: Eight Node Structural Shell A-I
Appendix B : COMBIN14: Spring Damper B-1
Appendix C: MACRO Used for Analysis C-l
Appendix D: Design Data: Input and Output D-l

(iii)
DECLARATION

Declared that, except where specified references are made to other investigators, the
work embodied in this thesis is the result of investigation carried out by the author
under the supervision of Professor Sohrabuddin Alunad and Professor Abdul
Muqtadir of Civil Engineering Department, BUET.

Neither the thesis nor any part thereof has been submitted or is being concurrently
submitted in candidature for any degree at any other institution.

Author

(iv)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his indebtedness to Dr. Sohrabuddin Alunad, Professor
of Civil Engineering, BUET for his continuous guidance, invaluable suggestions and
affectionate encouragement at every stage ofthis study.

The author expresses his profound gratitude to Dr. Abdul Muqtadir, Professor of
Civil Engineering, BUET for his constant guidance, suggestions and encouragement
at all the phases of this work.

The author is grateful to Dr. Shamim Z. Bosunia, Professor of Civil Engineering,


BUET for his constructive and valuable suggestions at various stages of this study.

The author is grateful to Dr. Ishtiaque Aluned, Dr. Tahsin Reza Hossain and Dr.
Abdul Jabbar Khan for their suggestions at some critical stages of the work.

The author is grateful to Professor M. Feroze Aluned and Professor Md. Abdur
Rouf, Head of the Department of Civil Engineering for their timely help in
completing this thesis in time.

The author treasures a sacred belief in his parents for the unflinching faith in him
over the years, without which this achievement would have been impossible. This
achievement is nothing but their grace. The author is also grateful to his family
members, colleagues and well-wishers for their co-operation and companionship
extended to him during the research works.

(v)
ABSTRACT

The current practice in the design of mat foundation is to provide it with constant thickness.
Analysis of mat foundation and study of the results reveal that mat foundation is extensively
over-designed in the current approach. Mat foundation of constant thickness is designed by
ACI method, Conventional method or computer analysis by Finite Difference method, Finite
Grid method or Finite Element method. This over-design is due to uncertainty in the analysis
methods and lack of understanding of mat behaviour. Use of thick shell finite elements of
Ahmad lead to realistic analysis and more rational design procedure for mat foundation with
variable thickness, as proposed by Morshed and Sutradhar. To improve upon this procedure,
an extensive investigation has been carried out here on the behaviour of mat foundation
using finite element program named ANSYS. The most significant parameters for mat
foundation with variable thickness are mat thickness and modulus of subgrade reaction. A
reshaping scheme proposed earlier has been improved.

The reshaping scheme of mat foundation with variable thickness is compared with flat slab
having drop panels. Column loads applied on the mat foundation generates a distributed
reactive soil pressure. A mat foundation can be considered as an inverted flat slab with non-
uniform pressure on it. For high-rise buildings upto fifteen story, design of mat foundation is
normally governed by vertical load that is dead load plus reduced live load. Usually
structures have regular column arrangement. An approximate method of analysis has been
proposed for mat foundation having column arrangements in a regular grid pattern. Most
residential and office buildings are of this type. For these types of structures, one can design
the mat foundation with variable thickness economically and speedily using hand
calculation. A simplified arrangement of reinforcement distribution has also been proposed.

Finally, a complete analysis of mat foundation with variable thickness for a three bay ten
storied building has been done by the proposed approximate method and Finite Element
method. Results of both these methods have been compared. An economic evaluation of the
mat foundation with variable thickness has been compared with mat of constant thickness.
An economy of 25% to 40% can be achieved by the proposed method for the mat
foundation.

(vi)
LIST OF SYMBOLS

A Plan area of mat


As Steel area
B Width of the strip
C/C span width of panel
y dimension of mat

Effective depth of mat


ds Slope width
dg Width of greater thickness
DL Dead load
E Modulus of elasticity of materials used in structure
Es Modulus of elasticity of soil
x eccentricity ofR W.r.t. the center of the mat
y eccentricity ofR W.r.t. the center of the mat
Ultimate concrete strength
Yield strength of steel
Moment of inertia of mat area W.r.t. x and y axes

Moment of inertia of footing


Moment of inertia of structure per unit length
Modulus of subgrade reaction
Live load
Length of the strip
C/C span length of panel
Clear span length from face to face of columns
Length of the thicker zone
Total panel moment
Radial and tangential moments for a unit width of mat
M Acting bending moment
End correction to moment, shear and displacement
respectively
End moment and shear respectively
Bending moment along x and y axes respectively

(vii)
n Total number of columns
P's Column loads
pt Strip column loads

Q Shear force per unit width of mat


Qa Average load on the strip
q Soil pressure at any point under the mat
qa Average soil pressure under the strip
qi Soil pressure at the corners of the strip
ql , q2 Soil pressure intensity at the left and the right end of the strip
respectively
R Resultant of all column loads
r's Distance of the strip column loads from the left end of the
strip
r Radial distance of the point under investigation from P
t Thickness of mat in inch
vpu Ultimate punching shear strength
Vru Ultimate flexural shear strength
w Average soil pressure obtained by dividing the total axial load
by the total bearing area
WL Wind load
X's x coordinates of the columns w.r.t. the corner of the mat
Y's y coordinates of the columns w.r.t. the corner of the mat
x, y Coordinates of locations where soil pressures are desired
w.r.t. the center of the mat
v Poisson's ratio of concrete
'P, R's , Z's Functions first introduced by Schleicher (1926)
<jl Angle of the radial line passing through the point under
consideration w.r.t. the positive x axis in a clockwise direction
p Steel ratio

Pmax Maximum steel ratio

pmin Minimum steel ratio


Ilt Change in thickness

(viii)
CHAPTER!

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Mat foundations become economical when the loads are so large that footings would
occupy more than fifty percent of the projected area of the building. Mat foundations
are commonly used for structures wherever the column loads or soil conditions result
in conventional footings or piles occupying most of the site. For many multi-storied
buildings a single mat foundation is more economical than constructing a multitude of
isolated foundation elements. In a foundation on an elastic subgrade, the soil pressure
and the deflection vary from point to point. Mat foundations due to their continuous
nature provide resistance to independent differential column movements, thus
enhancing the structure's performance. Mats can bridge across weak pockets in the
non-uniform substratums, thus equalizing foundation movements. Mat foundations are
predominantly used in regions where the underlying stratum consists of clayey
materials with low bearing capacity. This is also used as a load distributing element
placed on piles or directly on high bearing capacity soil or rock.

Mat foundation has gained wide spread popularity among the engineering community
of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is running its race for prosperity and urbanization has
become an integral part of this endeavour. Nowadays, high rise buildings are
becoming common features of major cities in Bangladesh. Many have been
constructed, many are under construction and many more are on the planning table.
Engineers often opt for mat as their foundation.

Construction of high rise building is not an easy task in Bangladesh. As engineers


come to the soil eventually, seeking support for their superstructures, they face
frequently the unfavorable reality. The soft soil of Bangladesh has relatively low
bearing capacity. Heavy column loads may demand for large footing areas summing
up to more than half of the total foundation area available. In south-western region of
the country, soil has very poor bearing capacity upto 100 ft depth where cast-in-situ
pile foundation is not technically and economically sound, even for a six storied
building. The most formidable hurdle, foundation engineers often have to encounter, is
excessive settlement, specially differential settlement. Although pile foundation offers
solution to these problems, sharp jump in expense becomes a serious point to ponder
in the poverty lashed economy of Bangladesh, not to mention the disturbance to city
life and the possibility of damage to underground structures associated with pile
foundation construction.

The various advantages of mat foundations are :


(a) use of the raft as a basement floor having considerable commercial
values in urban areas,
(b) use of the flexural stiffness to reduce differential settlements due to
swelling and shrinking of active soils,
(c) use of the flexural stiffness to reduce contact pressures in regions of
higher soil compressibility,
(d) use of its own rigidity and that of the superstructure to activate
bridging effect,
(e) use of the raft in combination with piles to reduce total settlement,
(I) use of flotation effect due to displaced volume of soil.

Mat foundations are also popular for deep basements both to spread the column loads
to a more uniform pressure distribution and to provide the floor slab for the basement.
A particular advantage for basements at or below the ground water table is to provide a
water barrier. For all these advantages, mat foundations are becoming increasingly
popular.

There are several categories of mat foundation problems which by their nature require
sophisticated computer analysis, since long hand methods would not be directly
applicable. These are :
i) mats of unusual or complex shapes,

2
ii) mats where it is deemed necessary that a varying subgrade modulus must be
used,
iii) mats with non-uniform thickness,
iv) mats where large moments or axial forces are transmitted to the mat from
laterally loaded shear walls, trusses or frames, and
v) mats where rigidity of superstructure significantly affects mat behavior and stress
distribution.

There are several types of mat foundation i.e.,


i) flat plate,
ii) plate thickened under column,
iii) waffie slab,
iv) plate with pedestal,
v) plates with stiffeners as basement walls,
vi) thin plate with grid floor beams.

Fig. 1.1 illustrates several mat foundation configurations as might be used for
buildings.

The most common mat foundation configuration is the flat plate type. This type of
foundation tends to be heavily overdesigned due to additional cost of thick slab and
uncertainty in analysis.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In Bangladesh, Mat foundation is the solution not only to high rise structures but
also to low rise structures, particularly where soil has low bearing capacity like
south-western part of the country. At the present state, manual design of mat
foundation is quite laborious and time consuming. Finite Element Solution of it is
also laborious and time consuming. It is common tendency of the designer to
simplifY structural design and over design the mat due to uncertainty in analysis of

3
~
~ ' I : '

A-A 13.8
• •
1
(.
A II II A 8 ~/
'-
\
,II', (II \
\ / ,
'II
8
t II II II II


t ~
gl

,
(~I

,i\
I.' (~;
- I
,...
i:
~lJ
(. t
,,ilJ
II II II II II)
'- -Ii'
I
'
~
II II
• II
• g' Ii' II' ,ii ' III

(n)
(0)

r- '/~ ,/,LLL., /j ~
c-c D-D
c 0 0
r-, r', r-l r'l
• L.": • ~ . ...:• ~_~ • ~_J • C
+
t • II • • •
••I
II [!] [!] [!] g +
r-l r-l r-l r-l
'-,
L.-I
I I
t.._ 'C • .1 '•. J I
I 1,_. -=LJ
II . ., II . .., II ..,-r-llli
r r r
[!J [!J [!J
, I r I , I I
~
-
L __I
II
J~_.J

II
L . ....J

II
L.J
_ l-.r
(c) (d)

E. r--l
I
r- -,' r---'
I I I I,
r- --I
, £
, I I I I I I I
L _ :......J L I L __ -.J l __ J +
r"" - - -j r - --(r - - -I r --;
I I , I I I , I
I I I I J ' I I
L __ J L __ ..J L __ -I L __ -l
r--., r--., r---' r--l
, I , I I I I
I I I I I J I I
L_ . ..J L __ .J L __ J L __ .J

(e)
Fig.!.!. Common types of mat foundation (a) flat plate; (b) plate thickened
under columns; (c) wattl'e slab Cd) plate with pedeslals and (e)
basement wall as part of mat.
structures. It is desirable to analyse and design mat foundation speedily, rationally
and economically.

1.3 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

A number of methods is available for the analysis of mat. None is accurate and
convenient enough. There are some approximate methods which are considerably
crude and are in use for a long time. Recently, there are some computer based
methods available. However, these computer based methods idealize mat
unrealistically. The modeling of soil also has got its own limitations.

Tn the most common and simplified method, known as Conventional method,


column loads are distributed under the mat; then the mat is divided into strips
midway between the column lines and the force system acting on each strip is
adjusted to establish equilibrium. Finally, each strip is designed as a combined
footing. This is repeated for the other direction. This method is recommended by
ACT when adjacent spans and column loads do not vary by more than 20%.
However, in this method mat is considered to be fully rigid in determining the soil
pressure and also the divided strips lose their plate characteristics i.e. two way
bending.

One of the most popular methods of mat analysis is the ACT Approximate Flexible
method (Committee 336) which is essentially based on the analysis of Schleicher
(1926). In this method, as the name implies, the mat is considered to be a flexible
plate acted upon by concentrated column loads and resting on a Winkler medium.
Effect of each load is calculated as if the plate were infinite. Forces for each
individual column are summed up. To have the edges free from forces, the mat is
divided into strips and the forces obtained by this approach on the edges are applied
in opposite direction on the respective edges considering each strip to be supported
on semi-infinite elastic foundation [Hetenyi (1946)]. Finally, this new set of forces
are added to the previous ones. Shukla (1984) presented design aids for using this
method. Later, this method was further modified by Mician (1985). However, this

4
complicated and lengthy approximate method fails to take into account the boundary
conditions and moments from columns.

Baker (1948) proposed a method of mat foundation analysis where the mat is
divided into column strips resting on Winkler medium and each strip is analyzed
separately. A particular soil pressure distribution of unknown magnitude is assumed
and applied on both the column strip and the supporting soil. The magnitude of soil
pressure is determined by taking the maximum differential displacements of the
column strip and the supporting soil as the matching criteria. However, the detailed
deflected shapes of the column strip and the supporting soil do not match in this
method. Also, this method can not take into account column base moments and fails
to represent the plate characteristics of mat.

Bowles (1974) has proposed Finite Grid method in which the mat is reduced into a
grid system consisting of beam-column elements resting on Winkler medium.
Solution to the problem is obtained following the stiffuess matrix approach.
According to Bowles, there is a little computational improvement if the soil is
modeled using its modulus of elasticity and Poison's ratio instead of its modulus of
subgrade reaction. However, the plate characteristics of mat is lost in this method.
Also, the program requires extensive data in generating the grid geometry, sectional
and material properties.

There is also Finite Difference method [Bowles (1974), Deryck and Severn (1960,
1961)] where the mat is modeled as large flat plate on elastic medium. The fourth
order differential equation as given by plate theory is then numerically solved using
finite difference technique. Handling column moments is beyond the scope of this
method. Also, interpretation of the boundary points is cumbersome in this method.

At BUET, Hossain (1993) conducted a comparative study of the available analysis


methods of mat foundation and felt the need for a rigorous finite element study of
the problem. Later, MoIIa (1995) tested the performance of Mindlin plate element
in finite element analysis of mat foundation and also compared the results with those

5
from other available methods. The study of Molla opened a wide horizon for a
rigorous finite element study of the problem with more appropriate and versatile
element in search of a more economic design of mat. Sutradhar (1995) compared the
analysis of mat foundation by Finite Element method using Ahmad's thick shell
element with those by Finite Grid method and Finite Difference method.

Lefas, Georgiannou and Sheppard (1996) presented an iterative procedure for


analysis and design of mat foundation based on a soil-structure interaction procedure
developed using well-marketed programs VDISP by OASYS. STAAD-III/ISDS by
Research Engineers and Supercalc by Computer Associates. VDrSp is a
geotechnical program for calculating vertical displacements at specified points due
to any pattern of loading on an elastic half-space representing the ground. From
VDISP the spring constant K, is entered into the STAAD-III grillage and the raft is
analysed.

Liou and Lai (1996) presented a simplified structural analysis model for mat
foundation with grid floor beams as stiffeners. The model becomes grid floor beams
on an elastic foundation with loadings applied at the intersections of floor beams.
The yield line theory (Johansen 1962) for bottom slabs is employed to lump the
sub grade reaction springs to the location under grid floor beams.

Morshed (1997) and Sutradhar (1999) conducted comparative analysis between


finite element method using Ahmad's thick shell element with ACr method and
Conventional method. Morshed suggested a mat foundation with variable thickness.
His findings paved the way for developing a new design rationale for mat
foundation. Sutradhar suggested a more definite guideline for selecting a mat of
variable thickness and analysis with finite element methods.

6
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The present research has been aimed at the following objectives:


(i) To propose a guideline for analysis and design of rectangular mat
foundation by finite element methods.
(ii) To conduct significant parametric study of mat foundations with both
constant and variable thickness.
(iii) To demonstrate the necessity of designing mat foundation with variable
thickness.
(iv) To propose a guideline for approximate analysis and design of mat
foundation with variable thickness.

1.5 METHODOLOGY

For analyzing mat foundation by finite element technique a well reputed finite
element program ANSYS has been used. Soil has been modeled with spring
elements and Eight noded shell element has been used to represent mat foundation.
Application of these elements has been checked with closed form solution results
obtained from Hetenyi (1979).

In an attempt to make foundation model a thorough survey of the related literatures


has been made. Limitations and assumptions of such models has been thoroughly
studied to choose the closest reasonable model. Comparative assessments has been
carried out to model soil as Winkler foundation model. Efforts have been made to
substantiate the findings from the sensitivity study of the parameters which are
critical in mat foundation design. Study of Morshed (1997) and Sutradhar (1999) has
been taken into account and verified. Efforts has been made to step ahead the
proposed design procedure.

A simple analysis and design method for mat foundation with variable thickness has
been proposed and critical aspects of the guide lines of this method has been
verified. A number of cases has been studied.

7
Finally, a complete analysis and design of a mat foundation of ten storied building
has been presented. At the end, a suggestion for future study has been recommended.

1.6 LAYOUT OF THE THESIS

The main body of the thesis consists of six main chapters. A thorough literature
survey has been carried out in Chapter 2. As this research is expected to step ahead
the study of Morshed and Sutradhar, main findings of their research is included in
this chapter. Chapter 3 describes the finite element model of mat foundation used in
the study. An extensive parametric study on selected parameters are carried out in
Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, a number of mat foundation of different shapes on different
modulus of sub grade reaction is carried out and their results have been summarized.
In Chapter 6, an improved approach to the analysis and design of mat foundation is
proposed. Validity of this approach is compared with finite element solution. Also, a
comparative economic evaluation has been shown. Chapter 7 contains the
conclusions drawn from the research.

In addition, there are four appendices in this thesis. Appendix A includes description
of eight nodded Structural shell Element SHELL93 of ANSYS Library Function,
Appendix B includes description of spring element COMBINl4 of ANSYS library
function. Appendix C contains the MACRO used for analysis of mat with ANSYS
for prospective researchers. Appendix D contains description of geometry and
loading for mat and variation of deflection, bending moment and shearing stress.

8
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The role of typical raft foundation is to transmit the load coming from the super structure
to the soil beneath without causing distress to any of the components of the super structure
or foundation. Analysis of mat foundation requires study of two aspects, the soil- structure
interaction and the various methods of analyzing the mat. The mechanical response of
naturally occurring soils can be influenced by a variety of factors. These include shape,
size and mechanical properties of the individual soil particles, the configuration of the soil
structure, the intergranular stress history and the presence of soil moisture, the degree of
saturation and the soil permeability. These factors generally contribute to stress-strain
phenomena which display markedly non-linear, irreversible and time dependent
characteristics. Thus an attempt to solve a soil-foundation interaction problem taking into
account of all such material aspects is clearly an onerous task. In order to obtain
meaningful and reliable information for practical problems it becomes necessary to
idealize the behavior of soil by depicting soil models.

2.2 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

There are several methods to analyse mat foundation. These are a) Conventional
method, b) ACI approximate flexible method, c) Baker's method, d) Finite difference
method, and e) Finite grid method.

Conventional method is the crudest one. Here, mat is treated as a rigid slab. Slab is
assumed to be rigid, resulting in uniform or linearly varying contact pressure
distribution, depending on whether the raft supports symmetric and eccentric loads.

9
Actual contact pressure distribution is the result of the foundation-soil interaction,
which can be determined by an interaction analysis involving the elastic properties of
both the foundation and soil. Soil structure interaction is an important aspect in the
process of predicting overall structural response.

All the other methods are based on Winkler spring model. ACI method is based on
Schleicher's solution of infinite flexible slab on continuous spring support and Baker's
method is designed to simulate that solution. Finite grid and Finite difference methods
are numerical analysis methods and require extensive computer support though they do
not offer any substantial improvement in results over Schleicher's solution. The first
two methods are generally used.

2.3 FOUNDATION MODEL

2.3.1 General

Generally the analysis of bending of beams on an elastic foundation is developed on the


assumption that the reaction forces of the foundation are proportional at every point to the
deflection of the beam at that point. This assumption was first introduced by Winkler
(1867) and formed the basis of Zimmermann's classical work (1930) on the analysis of
railroad track. It has been shown by Foppl's classical experiment (1922) and Hetenyi's
analytical work (1946) that Winkler's assumption in spite of its simplicity leads to
satisfactory results in stress analysis of beams on an elastic foundation.

On the other hand, by means of the hypothesis of isotropic, linearly elastic semi-infinite
space, the physical properties of a natural foundation can be correctly described. To bridge
the gap between these two extremes, interactions between Winkler's springs were
considered by several authors. Hetenyi (1950) treated the problems of beams or plates on
an elastic foundation by assuming a continuous beam or plate embedded in the material of
foundation, which is itself without any continuity. Pasternak (1954) assumed that the shear

10
interactions exist between the springs. Vlasov and Leont'ev (1966) also considered the
shear interactions in the foundation and formulated their problems by using a variational
method. They solved a large number of problems involving beams, plates and shells on
two parameter model elastic foundation.

2.3.2 Winkler Model

The idealised model of soil media proposed by Winkler (1867) assumes that deflection
w, of the soil medium at any point on the surface is directly proportional to the stress, q
applied at that point and independent of stresses applied at other locations, i.e.
q(x,y) = kw(x,y) (2.1)
where k is termed the modulus of subgrade reaction with units of stress per unit length.
There are indications that this assumption is already to be found in the works of Euler,
Fuss, Bubnov and Zimmermann ( Korenov, 1960; Hetenyi, 1966 ). The equation is
usually the response function or the kernel function of Winkler model. Physically
Winkler's idealisation of the soil medium consists of a system of mutually independent
spring elements with spring constant k (Fig. 2.1).

p ,

(e) z (d) z

Fig. 2.1 Surface displacements of Winkler model due to (a) a non-uniform load,
(b)a concentrated load,(c) a rigid load, (d) a uniform flexible load

tI
One important feature of this soil model is that the displacement occurs immediately
under the loaded area and outside this region the displacements are zero. Also for this
model the displacements of a loaded region will be constant whether subjected to a rigid
load or a uniform flexible load.

2.4 ANALYSIS METHODS

2.4.1 Conventional Method of Analysis

In this method, mat is treated as infinitely rigid giving planer soil pressure distribution.
The mat is divided in both directions into strips centered on the column lines and having
widths equal to half the spacing of column lines on each side of the column lines. Each
strip is loaded by column loads and supported by soil pressure. This method can be used
where the mat is very thick and column spacing and loading are fairly uniform. Though
quite suitable for hand calculation, this method simply fails to represent the reality with
mat foundation such as shear concentration near the loads.

The procedure for the conventional analysis consists of the following steps:
(i) The resultant of all loads acting on the mat and its location is determined from:

R = i Pi
f",l
(2.2)

(2.3)
e,
f PiX
j~l
..
- L,~
f i_I
P,

,
2: ~.Yj
j",1
(2.4)
ey = , By.
2: Pi
i=d

where
R = resultant of all column loads,
X's =x coordinates of the columns w.r.t. the comer of the mat,

12
V's =y coordinates of the columns w.r.t. the comer of the mat,
P's = column loads,

n = total number of columns,


Lx. =x dimension of mat,

B =y dimension of mat,
Yrn

e, =x eccentricity ofR w.r.t. the center of the mat,


ey =y eccentricity ofR w.r.t. the center of the mat.

(ii) The slab is divided into strips in x and y directions, one direction at a time,
halfway in-between the column lines. Each strip is assumed to act as an independent
beam supported by soil pressure and acted upon by column loads. Steps (iii) to (vi) will
be applicable to each of these strips.

(iii) The soil pressure distribution is calculated using the equation:

I e,x e,Y) (2.5)


q = R( -+-+--
A I, I,

where
q = soil pressure at any point under the mat,
A = plan area of mat,
Ix , Iy = moment of inertia of A w.r.t. x and y axes,

x,y = co-ordinates oflocations where soil pressures are desired w.r.t. .


the center of the mat.

Soil pressure is calculated at the four comers of the strip and their average is obtained
from

(2.6)

where
q, = average soil pressure under the strip,
q; = soil pressure at the comers of the strip.

13

or.
.' ~
This time a check is made that the maximum soil pressure is less than the allowable
bearing capacity.

(iv) q. and the strip column loads are modified to enforce static force equilibrium. First,
the average load on the strip is calculated by

1 Us
Qa = - ( IBLq.1 + I L Pis I ) (2.7)
2 i=1
where

Q. = average load on the strip,


B = width of the strip,
L = length of the strip,
ns = no of columns in the strip,
ps = strip column loads.
\

The modified average soil pressure is calculated by

(2.8)

The modified column loads Fi are determined from

(2.9)

i=l

(v) To ensure moment equilibrium q a is then shaped as a trapezoid so that the


resultants of soil pressure and column loads meet at the same point. The end magnitudes
of the soil pressure 1rapezoid is calculated as follows:

If);
e =..1=.L- (2.10)
, ".
IF,
/.\

14
(2.11)

(2.12)

where
e, = eccentricity of the resultant of the strip column loads w.r. t.
the left end of the strip,
r's = distance of the strip column loads from the left end of the strip,
= soil pressure intensity at the left and the right end of the strip
respectively.

(vi) The shear force and bending moment are calculated at the various points of the strip
for the modified column loads and soil pressure.

Arora (1992) proposed that as the analysis is approximate, the actual reinforcement
provided should be twice the computed values.

Applicability And Limitations


According to the ACI Committee 336 (1966), the design of mats may be accomplished
using the conventional method if:

a) The average of the two adjacent spans in a continuous strip is less than 1.75/ A
(equation 2.33) and adjacent column loads and column spacing do not vary by more
than 20 percent of the greater value.

b) The relative stiffness factor Kr is found to be greater than 0.5, where

K=EIB (2.13)
, E,B'

15
where
E = modulus of elasticity of materials used in structure,
IB = moment of inertia of structure per unit length,
E, = Modulus of elasticity of soil and
B = Width of footing.

An approximate value of EIB per unit length of building can be found by summing
flexural rigidity of footing (ElF)' the flexural rigidity of each framed member (EIb) and

the flexural rigidity of any shear walls (Eah3/12) where a and h are the thickness and
height of the walls respectively; EIB is given by:
3
EIB = ElF + L Elb + L Eah (2.14)
12
where
IF = Moment of inertia of footing.

2.4.2 ACI Approximate Flexible Method

ACI Committee 336 (1966) suggested this method for the general case of a flexible mat
supporting columns at random locations with varying intensities of load. This procedure
is essentially based on Schleicher's solution of circular plate on Winkler medium.
Shukla (1984) provided charts for easy calculation of moments and shear following this
method.
The effect of a concentrated load on a flexible infinite slab resting on continuous spring
support has been found to damp out quickly away from the load. It is, therefore,
possible to consider mat as a plate of infinite dimension and determine the effect of a
column load in a specific region, called the zone of influence, surrounding the load.
This zone of influence is generally not large and beyond this zone moments and shears
in mat is insignificant. The total effect of all the column loads at any point can thus be
determined by superimposing the effect of all the column loads within whose zones of
influence the point lies. If moments and shears are found along the edges then these are

16
later applied in opposite direction at the same location and with a semi-infinite beam
analysis their effects inside the mat is calculated and superimposed on the previous
solution to have the final moments and shears. The later part of the analysis is called
end correction and is a way of getting rid of the errors acquired by treating the mat
infinite. Mat deflections, though unrealistic, can be calculated in the same manner.

This method can not take care of column base moments, does not model boundary
conditions realistically and gives unsatisfactory result near the edges.

A problem can be systematically solved through the following steps.

(i) The flexural rigidity of the mat, D is calculated.

Etl (2.15)
D=
12(1- v2)
where
E = modulus of elasticity,
= 57000..Jf, psi for concrete (ACI 318-83, Section 8.5.1),

fc = ultimate concrete strength in psi,


t = thickness of mat in inch,
v = Poisson's ratio of concrete ( 0.15 to 0.25).

(ii) The radius of effective stiffness L is then calculated as follows:

(2.16)

where
k = modulus of subgrade reaction.

17
Radius of influence for any column load is 4L and calculation of deflections, bending
moments, and shear forces due to any column load will be limited within this zone
around that column.

(iii) Since the effect of each load is transmitted through the mat in a radial direction,
polar co-ordinate system was used in the original solution. The radial and tangential
moments, the shear and deflection at a point are calculated using the following
formulae:

p, Z3(~) (2.17)
M, = - "4[Z4 (L) - (1- v) -~-]
L

p, Z;(~) (2.18)
M, =-"4[VZ4(L)+(l-V) ~ ]
L

Q = -~Z' (~) (2.19)


4L 4 L
2
w = PL Z (~) (2.20)
4D 3 L
r I r 7 r r r (2.21 )
Z3(-) = -ZI(-) - -[R1(-) + Z2(-)log,{1.781-}]
L 2 L II L L L
rI r 7 r r r (2.22)
Z4 (-) = - Z 2(-) + -[R 2 (-) + Z 1(-) log e {1.781-}]
L 2 L II L L . L

(2.23)

(2.24)

co (_1),+1\11{2(i -I) + 1}(~)4('-I)+2


R(~)=I L (2.25)
1 L ,=1 24(,-ll+2[{2(i_I)+I}!]2

18
(2.26)

n I
lJI(n) = L: (2.27)
i= 1

where
p = concentrated load,
r = radial distance of the point under investigation from P,
= radial and tangential moments for a unit width of mat,

Q = shear force per unit width of mat,


w = mat displacement,
'1-',R's and z's = functions first introduced by Schleicher (1926).

The Z and R functions have the characteristic features of exponential waves and it is
accurate enough to calculate only 4 or 5 terms of those.

(iv) The radial and tangential moments are then converted into bending moments in
cartesian co-ordinate system using the following formulae, whereas shear and
disp lacements in the cartesian coordinate system remains the same.

Mx = M r cos2 cjl + M t sin 2 cjl (2.28)

My = M,sin2cjl + Mtcos2~ (2.29)

where
M" My = bending moment about y and x axes respectively,
'I-' = angle of the radial line passing through the point
under consideration w.r.t. the positive x axis
in a counter clockwise direction.

19
(v) For the resultant effect of all the column loads, radii of influence of whose overlap at
points of interest, the moments, shears and displacements due to individual columns are
superimposed.

(vi) If the edge of the mat is within the influence zone of some of the columns, at the
end of the afore-mentioned procedure there will be bending moments and shear forces
along the edges. If the edges should be free of forces, a correction should be applied.
This is done as follows:

The mat is divided into strips of unit width in both directions. Assuming the strips as
semi-infinite beams; shears and moments equal and opposite to those obtained in the
previous analysis is applied and their effects at various points are superimposed on the
respective values obtained earlier.

For moment, shear and deflection in a semi infinite beam, the following relationships
are used:
Ye (2.30)
Mc = MeAAr-sxTBAr

(2.31 )

2M 1..2 C 2VeA.
W :::: _ e
Ar + s x k DAr (2.32)
C k

(2.33)

A Ar = e -Ar (casA.r + sin A.r) (2.34)

BAr = e -Ar sin A.r (2.35)

(2.36)

(2.37)

20
where

Me' Ve&we = end correction to moment, shear and displacement respectively,


Me ,ve = end moment and shear respectively,

B = width of mat strip = I,


Ib = moment of inertia of mat strip,

s = I for left side end forces,


= .1 for right side end forces,
r = distance of the point under consideration from the end
conditioning force Me or Ve .

Variation of A)J , B)., , C)., and D)J with r and variation of C"" and Cml with x is shown III

Fig.2.2 and Fig 2.3 respectively.

2.4.3 Comparison of Various Methods

Results obtained by Conventional Method and ACI Approximate Flexible Method are
compared with respect to finite element solution by Morshed (1997) and Sutradhar
(1999). Their main findings are tabulated in Table 2.1.

21

",' .
1.0

--A"
0.8 --- BA,
-...- CAr

~ DAr
0.6
0;'
"0
ffi 0.4
;,
u
CD" 0.2

0.0

-0.2
o 2 3 4 5 6

A.r
Fig. 2.2

0.30

--Cm
0.25
-+-em

0.20

E 0.15
U
"0
C
0.10
'" ~
E
U
0.05

0.00

-0.05
0 1 2 3 4

x=r/L

Fig.2.3 Variation ofCmr and Cml with x = r/L (After Shukla ,1984).

ri
' U..~
Table 2.1 Comparison Between Various Methods

Parameter Location Conventional Method ACI Method

Deneclion At Col. Edge Cannot be Calculated Overestimates

In between. Column. Cannot be Calculated Underestimates

Moment Column Face Fails to predict any Underestimates

+ve moment moment

-ve moment between Overestimates Overestimates

cois. less at edges

Shear Away from Compatible Compatible

Column.

Near Column. Underestimates too much Overestimates

Punching Shear At d/2 from calunm Compatible Underestimates, Compatible I

fac~ in central eals.


I I
Flexural At d from column face Underestimates Overestimates I
I
I
I
Shear
II
Thickness Whole Mat Compatible. Overestimates.

Governed by Punching Governed by Flexural Shear

Shear

+'''e Steel +ve moment areas Governed by minimum Governed by minimum steel

steel requirements requirements


I
-vc steel -\Ie moment areas Overestimates Largely Overestimates
I I I
I
I Economic I

I
In terms of Cl)J1L'rL'tt:& OverestiJ11:.ltes Ovcrestim:.lt('s I

Evaluation steel

22
2.5 SENSITIVITY STUDY OF MAT FOUNDATION

An extensive parametric study on various parameters has been done by Morshed (1997)
and Sutaradhar (1999). The summary of sensitivity analysis of mat foundation is given
in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis of Mat

Parameter Displacement Positive moment Negative moment Flexural Punching


Shear shear
Mat thickness Decreases. More Decreases. More Increases. More Flexural shear Punching
Increases decrease at corner decrease in interior increase in interior has very little shear remains
columns than central columns than midspan than change almost
columns. exterior columns exterior midspan. constant
,
Modulus of Displacement Positive moment Negative moment Flexural shear Punching
I I I
suhgrade decreases Increases. decreases. More has very little shear remains
I
reaction (K,) proportionately. ylore increase in decrease in exterior change almost
I, increases If Ks is 2 times.
I
exterior columns span than interior constant
, I
i displacement is I than interior span.
almost half. columns.
I I
liltimate I Displacement I Positive moment Negative moment
I Flexural shear Punching
strength of decreases and the II decreases Increases has very little II shear remains
concrete change is small. slightly. moderately. ,I change. I almost
increases I I constant.
I
I
I I I
I Width of Displacement Positive moment I
Negative moment Flexural shear I Punching
greater decreases more in increases slightly. decreases has very little shear remains
thickness
I
interior columns moderately. I change. almost
increases than exterior constant.
columns.

23
2.6 MAT WITH NON UNIFORM THICKNESS: A CHOICE FOR
ECONOMY

Morshed (1997) and Sutradhar (1999) conducted comparative analysis between finite
element method using Ahmad's thick shell element with ACI method and Conventional
method. Morshed suggested a non-uniform mat foundation. His findings paved the way
for developing a new design rationale for mat foundation. Sutradhar suggested a more
definite guideline for selecting a mat of non-uniform thickness and its analysis with
finite element methods.

The parametric studies of Morshed (1997) and Sutradhar (1999) revealed that the design
of regular shaped mats with non-uniform thickness follow some well defined trends.
Based on these findings, a design approach for mat with non-uniform thickness has been
recommended as follows:

(i) The problem should be solved first with a non-uniform thickness geometry
selected from the guideline shown in Fig.2.4. Column punching shear should be
estimated as 0.95 x column axial force.
t, = Greater thickness, calculate from this punching shear
t, = Smaller thickness = 2/3 of t,
d, vVii/th a/greater thickness, (effective depth
corresponding to t,)
d, = Slope wirilh = t/ ,[j

(ii) A mat analysis is performed by finite element program considering this


geometry. Now, the greater thickness (tg) under the columns should be designed
from the column punching shear found from analysis.
(iii) The greater thickness (tg) should be provided around the column peripheries over
a distance eqLlal to the effective depth corresponding to the greater thickness
itself.

.1..
P DL+LL - Maximum column axial load due to live load and dead load
(max) -

Ig thickness required to encounter 0.95 P DL+LL


=

./
---r (rn,,) as punching shear,

I, = 2/3 of Ig ,
dg = effective depth corresponding to Ig ,
II I I.
d, Ig/f3.
d. d,

Fig. 2.4 Guideline for selecting cross-sectional geometry for mat with variable thickness.

(iv) Smaller thickness should be calculated from the maximum flexural shear, found
from the solution, at the neck sections.
(v) Width of the transition zones (for gradual reduction of thickness) should be such
that slope angle of the underside of mat in these zones is about 300.
(vi) The problem should be analysed again with the new geometry just selected in
order to calculate reinforcements. Finally, a check on the adopted geometry
using the shear force diagrams and punching shears found from the new
sollllion.

(vii) Minimum reinforcement required for the zone of greater thickness should be
provided as bottom reinforcement under the columns across the entire widths of
column strips. Again, the new solution may be used to check the adequacy of
these reinforcements.
(viii) Reinforcements for negative moments in-between the columns should be
designed using the new solution.
(ix) Top reinforcements in-between the columns (negative moment zones) and
bottom reinforcements under the columns (positive moment zones) should be
calculated as per minimum requirements specified by ACI code.

Case studies reveal that mat thickness away from the column faces can be reduced by
about 40%. But to be on the conservative side X reduction is suggested in the

guideline.

25
2.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN MAT WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS AND
FLAT SLAB WITH DROP PANELS

Analysis and parametric study has shown that there is a basic similarity between flat
slab having drop panels and mat foundation of variable thickness. In flat slab, uniformly
distributed load i.e. combination of dead and live load is applied on the slab floor
supported on columns. In flat slab, the slab is made somewhat thicker near the column
than the rest of the slab, to reduce the shearing stress in the slab within the area of drop.
The increase in effective slab thickness provided by the drop also decreases the
compressive stresses in the concrete and reduces the amount of steel required over the
column heads.

In mat foundation with variable thickness, a thick slab type continuous mat foundation
rests on elastic subgrade. Column loads are applied on the slab to distribute the column
load to the substratum and a reactive soil pressure generates at the bottom face of the
slab. Mats having greater thickness near the column can actually be considered as an
inverted flat slab with drop panels. The reactive soil pressure distribution at bottom face
of mat is not, however, uniform as in the case of flat slab. Comparison of results in this
field requires extensive study of mat behaviour.

In flat slab drop panels are square or rectangular. The ACI code specifies that the side of a
drop panel shall be at least 0.33 times of the span in each direction and smaller thickness
out side the drop should be at least 67% of greater thickness within the drop. This
reduction in thickness has been done considering flexural shear.

In beams, simply supported or continuous, at the face of the column, flexural shear is
approximately 0.5 WL where W is load/unit length and L is span length of the beam. At
a distance 0.17L from the column face flexural shear is 0.33 WL and bending moment is
not significant. Bending moment is maximum at midspan. At a distance 0.17L, beam
thickness is governed by flexural shear and flexural shear is 2/3 of shear at the column

26
face. Considering flexural shear, beam thickness can be reduced to 66% of thickness at
the column face. At a distance 0.2L from the column face flexural shear is 0.3WL and
beam thickness can be reduced to 60% of thickness at the column face.

In flat slab, each panel is considered as a beam. Drop is extended 0.165 times of the span
on each side of the column. Considering flexural shear thickness outside the drop is
reduced to 66% of the greater thickness provided that each side of the drop is at least 0.33
times of the span in that direction.

A mat can be considered as inverted flat slab. To be conservative, width of thickened


zone has been taken 0.4 times of the span in each direction .. Mat panel can be
considered as a total beam. Thickened zone is extended 0.2 times of the span on each
side of the column. At the transition point of greater thickness to smaller thickness,
flexural shear is 60% of the flexural shear at column face and bending moment is not
signi ficant. So, at a distance 0.2 times of the span, mathematically thickness can be
reduced to 60% of greater thickness.

27
CHAPTER 3

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALISATION OF MAT FOUNDATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Finite element technique is the most powerful and versatile of all the available
numerical analysis techniques. In this method, the structure to be analyzed is
modeled as an assemblage of a finite number of discrete interconnected elements and
the displacements of the connecting points, called the nodal points, of these elements
are taken as the basic unknowns. The applied loads are transformed into equivalent
nodal loads and for each element, the relationship between the nodal loads and nodal
displacements is established. Then with a suitable assembling of the element load-
displacement relationship, sufficient number of load-displacement relations for the
whole structure can be found which, upon solution, give the nodal displacements.
Once known, these displacements are used to calculate stresses at the nodes or at
points within the elements. A well reputed powerful computer program ANSYS has
been used for analysis of mat foundation.

3.2 IDEALIZATION OF MAT FOUNDATION ON WINKLER MODEL

3.2.1 Structural Idealization

Mat foundation is a three dimensional thick plate structure. In case of mat transverse
flexural shear and bending moments are the most important internal forces produced
in response to the loads it usually encounters e.g. axial column forces and column
base moments. Element that can take account of shear deflection is particularly
suitable for this purpose. Plate bending elements are acceptable for representing the
flexural action of slab.

28
3.2.2 Idealization of Soil

Actual contact pressure distribution is the result the foundation soil interaction,
which can be determined only by an interaction analysis involving the elastic
properties of both the foundation and soil. Soil structure interaction is an important
process of predicting overall structural response. Settlement profile and soil contact
pressure for raft foundations are dependent on the relative stiffuess of raft and
supporting soil. In computer based methods, Winkler spring model has been used for
representation of the soil behavior. It consists of representing the soil which supports
a raft by discrete vertical springs. Winkler spring model gives satisfactory results
for structural design of a raft where loading could be approximated to a single point
load.

3.2.3 Selection of Element

Mat foundation, a three dimensional thick plate structure, for which transverse
flexural shears and bending moments are important. Eight noded structural shell
element SHELL93 in the library of ANSYS is one of the most suitable elements
which matches all of these above mentioned criteria. It can represent the thickness of
the mat by its very own geometry. The element has six degrees of freedom at each
node : translations in X, Y, Z directions and rotations about the nodal X, Y, Z axes.
Shear deflections are included in this element.

Spring element COMBIN14 has been used to represent the soil as the Winkler
Spring Model. The longitudinal spring option is a uni-axial tension-compression
element with three degrees of freedom at each node, translations in the nodal x, y, z
directions. It's options are so used that it acts as 3-D longitudinal spring-damper
which can take only deflection in the vertical, Y direction.

Soil springs may be uniform or may be zoned to incorporate the coupling effect of
soil springs. Uniformly distributed soil springs are first concentrated at the nodes.
This is done element wise and by lumping the total spring stiffuess under an element

29

.~..~
,;. -
at its nodes. A simplified approach is followed for this purpose. Spring elements are
connected at the comer nodes of the element only. Spring constants are calculated
from their influence area.

3.2.4 Element Mesh Configuration

The simplest element division scheme is adopted for mat. It makes both data
generation and result interpretation straight forward. The mesh used here is a
rectangular grid with the option of finer elements near column loads. The mesh is
characterized by the number of X and Z directional divisions of the grid and at
present, each of these can be increased up to infinite numbers. Details of the mesh
are shown in Fig 3.1.

3.2.5 Element and Node Numbering

The program uses frontal solution technique to evaluate nodal displacements. So in


order to minimize computer memory requirement, the front must be as narrow as
possible. This is accomplished by efficient numbering of elements. Front can be
narrowed by numbering the elements serially from one comer of the mat to the other.
The node numbering scheme is such that it makes nodal coordinate generation
simple. Nodes are numbered serially from one comer of the mat to the other comer.
Details of the node and element numbering scheme are given in Fig. 3.2.

3.2.6 Modeling of Soil and Boundary Conditions

Supporting soil is modeled as Winkler medium. Soil springs may be uniform or may
be zoned to incorporate the coupling effect of soil springs. Spring element, from
element library of ANSYS, COMBINI4 has been used to model the soil.

For vertical loading one fourth of the mat is analyzed. For vertical load in
combination with wind load half of the mat is analyzed. Rotation and horizontal
movement is restrained at the symmetry line to bring the effect oftotal structure.

30
Center line

"
., "" ,' ,, ,, .
,
_._---!------;----- ---_.-:--.---~----- ----- ----- ------:------:------;------:------ ----- -----
" ., , , , ,
-----~-----~----- ------:------~-----
" "
----- ----- -----~-_.,
__ .:------~-----~----- ----- -----
, , ,
-----;-----~----- ------:------~----- -----
"
-----~------:------~-----~-----
' " , , , -----
----- -----

:::::~::::: ::::::i:::::::::::: ::::: ::::: :::::j::::::~::::::::::: ::::::::::


:: :: : : : :
-_._-;._---:----- ------;------:---_ ... ---- ----- -----;------;---_.-:--_._-:----- ----- -----
"
-----,-----,_._-- "
_.----,--_._- .. ----- ----- _. __ . -----
,
.•' ------,------ .., ----- ,.. -_._- ----- -----
:: :: ,
: ,
: ,
; :
"
-----1------,----- "
---.--,------,..--_ ... ---- ----- --.-- .•-.----,------,--- •. ,,------ ---.- -.---
" ,, ,, ,,
,.::
" '
,
----_._----~-----
"
" "
... ---,-----_ .... --- ----- ----- -_.--~------,-----_
, , .. , _----~--_.-
, --_ .. -----

:: : : : :
,. , , ,
-----.-----~_. __ • ------,------~.---- A _ •• •• ••• ~ ~_. __ ••• -----

" ,
-- - -- ~ ---- -~
"
_. - - - .- - - - -:- - - - - -:- _ .. - -
"
"
"
----- - _. _. _.
- - - ~- , - - - - -:-,, - _. - -:-,, _. - - - ~
' ,,
- ---- - _. - - - - - --
" " , , , ,
..---.;-----~---~- _._._-:------;----_. -.--- ----- --_._-;._. __ .:.-----:------: ... --- ----- . __ ..
"
"
"
,. ,, ,, ,, ,,

:::::.::::: "
:::::r::::[::::: ::::: ::::: ::::::::::::.:::::[:::::
, "
"
,,
::::: :::::
, "

Fig. 3.1 Typical finite element mesh for mat foundation .

73 - 74 75 76 77
@
• 78 79
@
- 80 81
@ @ I
64 66 68 70 72

55 - 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

46
@
48
@ • 50 @
52
@
54

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

• @ 0 • 32 @ @
28

19 20
30

21
.

22 23 24 25
34
- 26
36

27
Q) @ @ @
10

2
12

3 4

Fig. 3.2 A typical finite element mesh for mat with element and node numbering.
5
14

6
16

7 8
18

9 -- X
3.2.7 Application of Column Loads

Both column axial loads and column base moments can be applied to the elements.
Column axial load may be applied as concentrated load applying the load as
concentrated force at comer nodes or it may be distributed over an area equal to the
cross-section of the column by taking an element, termed as column element.
Similarly, column base moments may be concentrated or distributed. In this study,
column axial load and bending moments are applied to the column element at comer
four nodes equally.

3.3 VERIFICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Results obtained by ANSYS has been verified with closed form solution of a beam
on elastic foundation in Hetenyi (1974). The structure is modeled with element
SHELL93 and soil is modeled with element COMBINI4 of ANSYS element
library.

A beam of infinite length of unit cross section subjected to a single concentrated


force, P at center, has the exact solution for deflection, bending moment and rotation
are given by

y = P-i e-"' (cos Ax + sin Ax) (3.1)


2k

(3.2)

(3.3)

Example:
A beam of unit width and unit depth is modeled with SHELL93 and COMBINI4
element. The model has been analyzed with line load P= 30 kip/ft across the width at
the center as shown in Fig. 3.3.

31
Modulus of sub grade reaction, k = 30 kip/eft,
Modulus of concrete, E, = 4.32 x 10' kip/sft.
Length of the beam, L = 80 ft.
Beam of X-section = 1'-0" x }'-O"

For long beam, AL must be greater than 1t.

Where, V
A = ~EJ

For beam of X-section l'-O"x 1'-0"

A =0.120141

AL =0.12014Ix80
=9.61 > ff

P = 30 kips

12"

••••••

Ot 12"

40'-0" 40'-0"
4
1
~14 ~I

Fig. 3.3 Beam resting on elastic subgrade subjected to concentrated load at the
center.

Comparison of results between exact solution and ANSYS solution for deflection,
bending moment and rotation is given in Fig. 3.4 to Fig. 3.6.

32
70.00
;l:: 60.00 --ANSYS
=.Co •..•..• ACTUAL
50.00
:;;: 40.00
..:
l:
CIl 30.00
E
o 20.00
:;;
.~ 10.00
-g 0.00
CIl
III -10.00
-20.00
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance from end. ft

Fig. 3.4 Variation of bending moment against distance along beam line.

0.001
--ANSYS
0.000 •..•..• ACTUAL
l:
••
'6 -0.001
E
C -0.002
o
:;:;
.l!
o -0.003
It:

-0.004

-0.005
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end. ft

Fig. 3.5 Variation of rotation against distance along beam line.


0.10
0.00 --ANSYS
-0.10 ----Actual
.c
CJ
.: -0.20
g -0.30
tlCIl -0.40
;; -0.50
C
-0.60

-0.70
-0.80
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end,ft

Fig.3.6 Variation of Deflection against distance along beam line.

3.4 CRITICAL ASPECTS OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

3.4.1 Selection of Finite Element Mesh

Finite element method is a numerical approach and the accuracy of its solution
increases with the number of elements in which the mat is divided. Solutions being
converging, a point comes when further refinement in mesh adds nothing significant
to the accuracy. Mesh sensitivity study has been made and a final mesh is selected.

3.4.2 Element Aspect Ratio

Shape of the element affects the results. Element aspect ratio must be between 0.5 to
2.0. Study on element aspect ratio has been done. Best results are obtained for
element aspect ratio equal to 1.0.

33
3.4.3 Effect of Column Rigidity

Columns are monolithically built with mat and they act integrally with it. Height of
column highly increases the rigidity of mat at these locations. This effect is realized
by increasing the value of modulus of elasticity of the portions of the mat under the
columns. To quantify this effect, column deflections, column face moments and
shears are plotted against the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of soil under column
portions by Sutradhar (1999). It appears that effect of column rigidity dies out with
increase of this modulus of elasticity ratio. Examining these, a modulus of elasticity
ratio of 8 is found to be justified.

34
CHAPTER 4

COMPARATIVE STUDY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

A comparative study on finite element solution of mat foundation for the variation of
its different parameters has been made. For comparison a sample problem of twelve-
storied building has been studied for vertical load that is for dead load and live load
only. Various parameters relevant to mat are selected for parametric study.
Sensitivity analysis is performed on some selected items at selected locations.
Variation of modulus of subgrade reaction and variation in differential thickness
have been taken into consideration.

A mat of constant thickness refers to mat foundation which has constant thickness
all over the mat foundation. A mat of variable thickness refers to a mat foundation,
which has greater thickness calculated from punching shear near the columns and
smaller thickness away from the columns.

4.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF MAT FOUNDATION

A twelve storied building of three bay frame in each direction with span 26'-0" has
been considered for the study. The building is symmetric in both directions.
Therefore, only one-fourth of the problem has been considered. The structure is
assumed to have uniform live load 60 psf, slab dead load 90 psf, distributed wall
load 30 psf and floor finish 25 psf. An amount of 440 lb/ft has been considered for
5" wall along all beams and the column size 24" x 24". Story height of the floor is
taken as 10'-0".

35
,..' ...
~ :i'
With Dead load factor 1.4 and Live load factor 1.7, the considered load case is
1.4DL+1.7LL for the mat foundation shown in Fig. 4.1. Geometry of the mat
foundation is shown in Fig. 4.1a and Fig. 4.lb. A commercial software STAAD-ill
has been used for analysis of the superstructure model. Respective column loads are
given in Table 4.1. Finite element idealization of the mat model has been described
in chapter three.

2' 2' 2' 2' 2' 2I 2' 2' 2' 2'

3.5'

O.4L~10' O.4L ~IO'

L ~26'

Fig.4.la Selected geometry of the mat foundation.

Table 4.1: Column loads for mat of twelve-storied building.


Title of Axial Force Bending Moment, Bending Moment,
Column (kip) M, (kip-ft) M, (kip-ft)
Al 1060 17.75 21.50
A2 1715 4.51 28.13
Bl 1708 21.42 5.58
B2 2799 7.99 9.93

4.2.1 Effect of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

The mat is analysed for constant thickness 3.5 ft and variable thickness with greater
thickness 3.5 ft and smaller thickness 1.75 ft, with variation of modulus of subgrade
reaction from 50 kcf to 200 kcf. Selected items for parametric study are
displacement, bending moment and shearing stress along lines 1 to 8 (Fig. 4.1).

36
26' 26' 26'

A4 B4 C4 D4
26'

A3 B3 C3 D3

1& ". J( ~ •

C enter, 'Line
.
I
II
_.- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ,- - - 26'
~ ,
, C2 D2
A2 B2 ,

II [11
,
G) -- . : )(
,
- ....
..
If. , . .•.•• <>

@ _.- 26'

(i) -- .~.
.;vo'"
C1 D1
;')r:

5' X

@ @ @

10' 16' 10' • 8' • 8' .Ji- 16' 10'


0
• 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0

2'-0" C A A 6 /3'-6'

~: 0
26' 0 , 26' • 0
26' 0 ~:

Fig.4.1b Mat of a three bay twelve storied building ( Plan and X-section ).
Variation of these items on column faces and midspan for mat with constant
thickness and mat with variable thickness are shown in Table 4.2. Upper and lower
values in the table are for modulus of subgrade reaction 50 kcf and 200 kcf,
respectively. Variation of parameters are expressed in percentage are shown in Table
4.3. The variations are plotted in Fig. 4.2 to Fig. 4.5.

As modulus of sub grade reaction increases, the following points are observed.
• Positive moment below the column increases slightly. This change is more
pronounced for exterior column than for interior columns (Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3).
• Negative moment at mid span decreases (Fig. 4.2 and Fig. 4.3).
• The variation of shearing stress is not very significant (Fig. 4.4).
• Displacements decrease at a fast rate. With two times the value of modulus of
sub grade reaction, the displacements are reduced to almost half. This variation is
less in midspan than for column faces (Fig. 4.5).

The variations for displacements and moments are more pronounced in mat with
variable thickness than with uniform thickness.

Table 4.2 Variation of displacement, moment and shearing stress when


modulus of subgrade reaction is increased from 50 kcf to 200 kcf.
Constant thickness Variable thickness
Displace Bending Shearing Displace Bending Shearing
Location ment Moment stress ment Moment stress
(inch) (k-fUft) (ksl) (inch) (k-fUft) (ksl)

Column face of 0.98 133.77 14.36 1.08 138.77 11.98


A2 (Line 3) 0.28 141.99 13.61 0.33 168.36 10.76
Midspan of 0.86 -205.96 -2.67 0.77 -139.86 -5.90
A2-B2 (Line 3) 0.20 -175.51 -2.60 0.17 -96.62 -4.49
Column face of 0.92 425.65 19.40 0.99 618.11 19.83
B2 (Line 3) 0.28 432.92 19.65 0.35 594.76 20.35
Midspan of 0.86 -114.02 1.074 0.89 -63.97 2.02
B2-C2 (Line 3) 0.22 -106.11 1.095 0.22 -70.14 2.08

37
500 __ CT-K 50 VT- K 50
__ CT-K 100 VT- K 100 Symmetry
400 ___ CT-K 150 __ VT- K 150 Line
__ CT-K 200 - VT- K 200
300
"
:::;
.: 200
l:
Gl;::
Ei!• 100 Variable
:::;o .•. thickness
01:';:
l: 0
'6
l:
Gl
III -100
mat geometry
-200

-300
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.2a Variation of bending moment Mx along line I with variation of sub grade
modulus K from 50 kcf to 200 kcf. (CT -constant thickness, VT -variable
thickness).

100
__ CT-K50 ___ VT- K50
__ CT-K 100 ____ VT- K 100
50 ___ CT-K 150 __ VT- K 150
__ CT-K200 -VT-K200

:;;" a
.:
l:
Gl;::
o i!•
E -50
:;; .e- Symmetry
",-'"
.=
"tl
-100
Line
l: Mat
'"
III Geometry
-150

-200
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.2b Variation of bending moment Mx along line 2 with variation of subgrade


modulus K.
700
-.-CT-K 50 -.-VT.K50
600 ___ CT-K 100 ___ VT-K 100
__ CT-K150 -.-VT- K 150
500 __ CT-K200 -VT-K200
><
:;;
400

'i 300
Gl=
g apOO
:;;.e-
CI" 100
c
:;; o
c
~ -100

-200

-300
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.2c Variation of bending moment Mx along line 3 with variation of subgrade


modulus K.

100
-.-CT-K50 -.-VT- K50
___ CT-K 100 ___ VT-K 100
50 -.-CT-K 150 -.-VT- K 150
__ CT-K200 -VT-K200
><
:;; 0
~
C
Gl=
E
o • := -50
:;; .e-
CI"
.5 -100
"c
Gl
III
-150

-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.2d Variation of bending moment Mx along line 4 with variation of sub grade
modulus K.
250
___ CT5Q-MX
-e-VT50-MX
__ VT10Q-MX Symmetry
200 -.-CT100-MX
Line
-llf-CT150-MX ---VT15Q-MX
>< -+- CT200-MX -VT20Q-MX
150
~
.:
c:
"'4;: 100
Ei!
o •
~.e-
c) ..•• 50
c:
:;;
c: 0 Mat
"'
III geometry
-50

-100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.3a Variation of bending moment M, along line 5 with variation of sub grade
modulus K from 50 kef to 200 kef. (CT-constant thickness, VT-variable
thickness).

o ___ CT-K50
-e-VT-K50
-.-CT-K100 __ VT-K 100
___ VT- K 150
-llf-CT-K 150
-50 -+-CT-K200 -VT-K200

.: -100
c:
"'4;:
Ei!
o .
~c) ..••
.e-
-150
c:
:;;
c:
"'
III
-200 Mat Symmetry
geometry Line ~

-250
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.3b Variation of bending moment M, along line 6 with variation of subgrade


modulus K.
700
__ cr-K50 ___ VT-K50
600 ___ cr-K100 __ VT-K100
__ VT-K150
-lI!- cr-K 150
--+- cr-K 200 -VT-K200
••
~
500

•••c 400
"'=
E:t!
o •
~ .e- 300
til"'"
.5
"tl
c 200
m'"
100

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 38 40 44

Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.3c Variation of bending moment M, along line 7 with variation of sub grade
modulus K.

0 __ cr-K50 ___ VT-K50


___ cr-K100 __ VT-K100
-20 __ VT-K150
-lI!- cr-K 150
--+- cr-K 200 -VT-K200
••
~ -40
•••c
-60
"'=
E:t!
o .
~.e- -80
til"'"
C
:;; -'00
c
m'"
-'20

-'40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end. ft

Fig.4.3d Variation of bending moment M, along line 8 with variation of sub grade
modulus K.

. '
.
f '.''
30
--CT.K50 __ VT.K50
--CT-K100 •...••...•
VT.K100
20 __ CT-K150 --VT.K150
•••III
...: ~CT-K200 -VT-K200
~.10
III
'Ii

-
III 0
l!!
III
•..ftl -10
Gl
.c
III -20

-30
0 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from End, ft

Fig.4.4a Variation of Shearing stress Sxyalong line 1 with variation of subgrade


modulus K from 50 kef to 200 kef. (CT-constant thickness, VT-variable
thickness).

4
3

- III
"':.:
"
2

1
X
rn 0
iii
III .1

-••~
rn -2
~
J:
••••
-3
rn --CT-K 50 --VT-K50
-4
--CT-K 100 --VT-K 100
-5 --CT-K 150 --VT-K 150
~CT-K200 -VT-K200
-6
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from End, ft

Fig.4.4b Variation of Shearing stress Sxyalong line 2 with variation of subgrade


modulus K.
30 __ CT-K50 -+-VT-K50
___ CT-K 100
-VT-K100
___ CT-K 150 __ VT-K150
20
•••
IA -+-CT-K200 -VT.K200
..II:
10
~.
III
0
iii
IA

-
l!!
III
"-GI
I'll
-10

-20
or;
III
-30

-40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from End, ft

Fig.4.4c Variation of Shearing stress Sxy along line 3 with variation of subgrade
modulus K.

8
__ CT-K50 __ VT-K50
__ CT-K 100 --VT-K 100
6 __ CT-K150 __ VT-K 150
.•.
III
--+- CT-K 200 _VT-K200
4
'>
"
><
til
2
.,
vi
III

-.,
~ 0
til
~
III
.c -2
til

-4

-6
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from End, ft

Fig.4.4d Variation of Shearing stress Sxy along line 4 with variation of subgrade
modulus K.
0.00

-0.20

-D.40

.5 -0.60
C
0
:;: -0.80
<.l
CIl
;;::
CIl -1.00
C
__ VT-K50
-1.20 --CT-K50
__ CT-K100 __ VT-K 100
.....- CT-K 150 __ VT-K 150
-1.40
-r-CT-K200 --VT-K200
-1.60
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.5a Variation of vertical deflection along line 1 with variation of sub grade
modulus K from 50 kcf to 200 kcf. (CT -constant thickness, VT -variable
thickness).

0.00

-0.20

l: -0.40
C
0
:;: -0.60
<.l
CIl
';
C -0.80
__ VT-K50
--CT-K50
__ CT-K100 --VT- K 100
-1.00
.....- CT-K 150 --VT-K 150
-r-CT-K200 --VT- K200
-1.20
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.5b Variation of vertical deflection along line 2 with variation of sub grade
modulus K.
0.00

-0.20

-0.40
c
C -0.60
0
:;:;
u
Gl -0.80
~
C
-1.00 __ VT-K50
--CT-K50
__ CT-K100 __ VT-K100.
-1.20 __ CT-K150 --VT.K 150
-+-CT.K200 --VT-K200
-1.40
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.5c Variation of vertical deflection along line 3 with variation of subgrade


modulus K.

0.00

-0.20

-0.40
.E
C -0.60
0
:;:;
u
Gl
l;: -0.80
Gl
C __ VT-K50
-1.00 --CT.K50
__ CT-K 100 --VT- K 100
__ CT-K 150 --VT-K 150
-1.20
-+-CT-K 200 --VT-K200
-1.40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.5d Variation of vertical deflection along line 4 with variation of sub grade
modulus K.
Table 4.3. Variation of displacement, moment and shearing stress (expressed in
percentage) when modulus of sub grade reaction is increased from 50
kef to 200 kef.
Constant thickness Variable thickness

Location Displace Bending Shearing Displace Bending Shearing


ment Moment stress ment Moment stress

Column face of
-71.4 6.1 -5.2 -69.4 21.3 -10.2
A2 (Line 3)
Midspan of
-76.7 -14.8 -2.6 -77.9 -30.9 -23.8
A2-82 (Line 3)
Column face of
-69.6 1.7 1.3 -64.6 -3.8 2.6
82 (Line 3)
Midspan of
-74.4 -6.9 2.0 -75.2 9.6 3.0
82-C2 (Line 3)

Study of Figs 4.2 to 4.5 and Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 reveals that distribution of
bending moment varies more significantly for mat with variable thickness, when
modulus of sub grade reaction varies.

4.2.2 Effect of Variable Mat Thickness

Mat of variable thickness consists of thickened part in the zone of higher shear and
positive moment near the column and smaller thickness in the zone of low shear and
negative moment away from the columns. Greater thickness is calculated for
punching shear and smaller thickness is varied for different values in the range of
40% to 70% of greater thickness. This problem is taken for comparative study.
Greater thickness is calculated to be 3.5 ft from punching shear and smaller
thickness is taken as 1.5 ft, 1.75 ft, 2.0 ft and 2.5 ft. For all cases modulus of
subgrade reaction, K have been taken 100 kef.

Selected items for parametric study are taken as displacement, bending moment and
shearing stress along lines 1 to 8. Variation of these items on some column faces and

38
Selected items for parametric study are taken as displacement, bending moment and
shearing stress along lines I to 8. Variation of these items on some column faces and
midspan along line 3 for mat with constant thickness and mat with variable thickness
with smaller thickness 1.5 ft and 2.5 ft for modulus of subgrade reaction 100 kcf are
tabulated in Table 4.4. Upper values in the chart are results for mat with uniform
thickness 3.5 ft and lower values are for non-uniform mat. Changes in values of
parameters, expressed in percentage of results for constant thickness are given in
Table 4.5. The variations of parameters for different smaller thickness along with
mat with constant thickness are also plotted in Fig. 4.6 to Fig. 4.9.

As the smaller thickness increases, the following points are observed


• Positive moment decreases along column line (Fig. 4.6a and Fig. 4.6c and Table
4.3) and increases along line between columns (Fig. 4.6b and Fig. 4.6d). This
variation is more for interior column than for exterior column.
• Negative moment increases (Fig. 4.7a to Fig. 4.7d). This variation is more for
exterior span compared to interior span.
• Shearing stress increases at column face and decreases in region away from
columns. The variation is not significant at column face (Fig. 4.8). Shearing
stress is decreased in the region away from column face due to increase in
effective area by increased smaller thickness.
• Displacements decrease below the column and increase at midspan. This effect
in exterior span is more pronounced. Deflection diagram is more uniform for mat
with constant thickness. Column to column differential settlement increases
slightly for mat with variable thickness (Fig. 4.9).

Smaller thickness, t, for mat with variable thickness at midspan is governed by


negative moment. As t, decreases negative moment decreases, at the same time
capacity of the section also decreases. Table 4.6 and Fig 4.10 show the variation of
bending moment and moment capacity for unit width of the smaller section for the
above example along line I and 3. Maximum and minimum moment capacity of a
section has been calculated with maximum and minimum steel ratio for unit width of
the section as singly reinforced beam. From Fig. 4.10 it appears that from moment
consideration smaller thickness can be reduced to 40% of greater thickness.

39
600

500 -+- Smaller thickness 1.511


__ Smaller thickness 1.75 It
400 __ Smallerthickness 2.011
--*'- Smaller thickness 2.5 11
__ Constant Thickness 3.5 It
300
.s
<:
~ ~ 200
o ,
:E.9- 100
01"'"
<:
'ij
<: o
Gl
CD -100

-200

-300
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.6a Variation of bending moment Mx along line I with variation of smaller


thickness (Greater thickness 3.5 ft).

100
-+- Smaller thickness 1.5 fl
__ Smaller thickness 1.7511
50 __ Smaller thickness 2.011
--*'- Smaller thickness 2.5 fl
__ ConstanlThickness 3.511

-150

-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.6b Variation of bending moment Mx along line 2 with variation of smaller


thickness.
800
700 __ Smaller thickness 1.5ft
__ Smaller thickness 1.75 ft
600 -+-Smallerthickness 2.0 ft
••
:E 500
~
__
Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
Constant Thickness 3.5 ft
i 400
~~300
o 0

:E .9- 200
01""
.5 100
."
~ 0
III -100
-200
-300
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.6c Variation of bending moment Mx along line 3 with variation of smaller


thickness.

100

50

oS
l:
o
••E _
:EoS••. -50
Ole.
c :i2
'5
l: -100
••
III -+- Sl1lI I er thickness 1. 5 It
__ Sl1lI I er t h ckress 1. 75 f t
-150
-+- Sl1lI I er t h ckress 2. 0 f t
---*- Sl1lI I er t hi ckress 2. 5 f t
__ Cllnst ant Th ckress 3. 5 f t
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

[l st ance from end, ft

Fig.4.6d Variation of bending moment Mx along line 4 with variation of smaller


thickness.
250

___ Smaller thickness 1.5ft


200 __ Smaller thickness 1.75 ft
__ Smaller thickness 2.0 ft
__ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
150 __ ConslanlThickness 3.5 ft
"
:!i
.s
c
C1>;:: 100
E:t!
o ,
:!i.e-
Cl"" 50
c
'6
c
CI> 0
lD

-50

-100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.7a Variation of bending moment M, along line 5 with variation of smaller


thickness (Greater thickness 3.5 fi).
o

-50
X
:E
,.;
c
ell;:: -100
Ea:
o ,
:Eo.
en:;;; -150
.5
"0
c
ell
al
-200 ___ Smaller thickness 1.5 ft __ Smaller thickness 1.75 ft
__ Smaller thickness 2.0 ft __ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
-- Constant thickness 3.5 ft
-250
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.7b Variation of bending moment M, along line 6 with variation of smaller


thickness (Greater thickness 3.5 fi).
700
__ Smaller thickness 1.5ft
600 ___ Smaller thickness 1.75 ft
__ Smaller thickness 2.0 ft
500 __ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
___ Constant thickness 3.5 ft

i 400
GIll::
g =.
:E.~
300

.=."",""
C
200

~
100

o
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, fl

Fig.4.7c Variation of bending moment Mx along line 7 with variation of smaller


thickness.
o

-20

" -40
:E
.:
c
GI lI:: -60
g=.
:E.~
",""
c -60
't:ic
~ -100
__ Smaller thickness 1.5 ft Smaller thickness 1.75 It
-120 __ Smaller thickness 2.0 It __ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
__ Constant thickness 3.5 It

-140
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, fl

Fig.4.7d Variation of bending moment Mx along line 8 with variation of smaller


thickness.
30

20
•••III
..lI:
~ 10
)(
f/)
iii

- 0
III
•..
Gl

f/)
•.. -10
'"
Gl
.c
__
__
Smaller thickness 1.5 It
Smaller thickness 1.75 It
f/)
-20 __ Smaller thickness 2.0 It
__ Smaller thickness 2.5 It
__ Constant thickness 3.5 It
-30
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.8a Variation of Shearing Stress, S,y along line 1 with variation of smaller
thickness (Greater thickness 3.5 ft).

•••III 2
..lI:

~
f/)
iii
o
III
~ -1
in•.. -2
'"
Gl
.c __ Smaller thickness 1.5 It
f/) -3 __ Smaller thickness 1.75 It
__ Smaller thickness 2.0 It
-4 __ Smaller thickness 2.5 It
__ Constant thickness 3.5 It
-5
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.8b Variation of Shearing Stress S,y along line 2 with variation of smaller
thickness.

\
30

20

•••II)
...: 10
>;
><
1Il 0
vi

-
II)
f!! -10
1Il
•..C'll
ell -20 -+- Smaller thickness 1.5 It
.c __ Smaller thickness 1.75 It
1Il
__ Smaller thickness 2.0 It
-30 -M- Smaller thickness 2.5 It

-- Constant thickness 3.5 It


-40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.8c Variation of Shearing Stress Sxy along line 3 with variation of smaller
thickness.

15 ,/

-+- Smaller thickness 1.5 It


-- Smaller thickness 1.75 It
10 __ Smaller thickness 2.0 It
~
...: ---
--
Smaller thickness 2.5 It
Constant thickness 3.5 It
~ 5
1Il
vi

-
II)
f!!
1Il o
•..
C'll
ell
.c
1Il
-5

-10
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.8d Variation of Shearing Stress Sxy along line 4 with variation of smaller
thickness.
0.00

-{l.10 __ Smaller thickness 1.5 ft


__ Smaller thickness 1.75 ft
-{l.20 __ Smaller thickness 2.0 ft
__ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
-{l.30 __ Constant thickness 3.5 ft
.5 -{l.40
.,••
C
0
u
-{l.50
l;:
-{l.60
••
Q
-{l.70

-{l.80

-{l.90

-1.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.9a Variation of Vertical Deflection along line 1 with variation of smaller


thickness (greater thickness 3.5 ft).

0.00
-- Smaller thickness 1.5 It
__ Smaller thickness 1.75 It
-0.10 __ Smaller thickness 2.0 It
-- Smaller thickness 2.5 It
-0.20 __ Constant thickness 3.5 It

.,••
.5
C -0.30
0
u
l;: -0.40
••
Q

-0.50

-0.60

-0.70
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.9b Variation of Vertical Deflection along line 2 with variation of smaller


thickness; .
0.00

-0.10 __ Smaller thickness 1.5ft


__ Smaller thickness 1.75ft
-0.20 __ Smaller thickness 2.0 ft
___ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
-0.30 __ Constant thickness 3.5 ft
.5
-0.40
C
..,,
0
;: -0.50
u
l;:
-0.60
c
-0.70

-0.80

-0.90

-1.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.9c Variation of Vertical Deflection along line 3 with variation of smaller


thickness.

0.00
__ Smaller thickness 1.5 ft
-0.10 __ Smaller thickness 1.75 ft
__ Smaller thickness 2.0 ft
-0.20 ___ Smaller thickness 2.5 ft
__ Constant thickness 3.5 ft

"C -0.30
0
;: -0.40
u
.,"
l;:
c -0.50

-0.60

-0.70

-0.80
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Distance from end, ft

Fig.4.9d Variation of Vertical Deflection along line 4 with variation of smaller


thickness.
Table 4.4. Variation of displacement, moment and shearing stress against
variation of smaller thickness (K. = 100 kef).

Smaller thickness 43% Smaller thickness 71 % of


of l!reater thickness l!reater thickness
Displace Bending Shearing Displace Bending Shearing
Location ment Moment stress
ment Moment stress
(inch) (k-ftIft) (ksl) (inch) (k-ftlft) (ksl)

Column face of 0.51 137.21 22.06 0.51 137.21 22.06


A2 (Line 3) 0.55 146.82 13.89
0.63 165.00 12.19

Midspan of 0.42 -192.45 -5.99 0.42 -192.45 -5.99


A2-B2 (Line 3) -148.68 -8.44
0.32 -83.44 -11.82 0.39

Column face of 0.49 432.34 33.18 0.49 662.30 33.18


B2 (Line 3) 0.53 550.21 32.10
0.63 662.30 30.11

Midspan of 0.43 -107.25 1.08 0.43 -107.25 1.08


B2-C2 (Line 3) 0.44 -78.79 1.59
0.45 -59.17 2.91

Flexural shear force varies from maximum at the column face and minimum at
midspan. For flexural shear, most critical section is neck section i.e. at the contact
point in between greater thickness and smaller thickness. In region of smaller
thickness of mat with variable thickness, flexural shear force is maximum at the
neck section. From Fig. 4.8a and Fig. 4.8c it is observed that at the neck section
along column strip shear stress is maximum. These values are always above than
flexural shear stress capacity of concrete. From Fig. 4.8b and Fig. 4.8d, it is
observed that at the neck sections, along middle strip, shear stress is below than
shear stress capacity of concrete. Fig. 4.11 shows the variation of flexural shearing
stress across the width at an interior neck section. As mat is a plate type structure
local increase in flexural shear cannot cause failure. It will fail only when ultimate
flexural shearing capacity is less than the flexural shear force across the width. Fig.
4.11 shows the ultimate stress capacity in flexure of the neck section along the
variation of shearing stress due to change in thickness.

, .
.'.':
40
1600
__ MomenlCapcitywith Min. Rein!.
1400
~ __ Max. Momenl Capacity
Q. 1200 __ Negtive Momenlforline 3
:ii
.,; ___ Negtive Momenlfor line 1
c: 1000
"E0 800
::;;
01 600
c:
'6
c: 400
"
m 200
0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Smaller thickness of nonuniform mat, ft

Fig. 4.10 Variation of bending moment and moment capacity along line along I and
3 at interior midspan with variation of smaller thickness (greater thickness
3.5 ft).

50
Symmetry
••• 40 Line
en
""vi 30
..
en
111

In
..'"
•• 20
111
10
.c::
In 0 Mat GeometrY

-10
0 10 20 30 40

Distance from end, ft


__ Smaller Thickness 1.5 __ Smaller Thickness 1.75
__ Smaller Thickness 2.0 ---Smaller Thickness 2.5
__ Conslanl Thickness 3.5 -- Section Capacity

Fig. 4.11 Variation of shearing stress and flexural shear capacity across the width at
the neck section.
As the smaller thickness increases, flexural shearing stress decreases, but total
flexural force remains constant. This decrease in flexural shearing stress is due to
increase in effective area due to increase in thickness. As the smaller thickness
increases capacity for flexural shear increases. Table 4.7 shows the capacity of the
neck section along with the flexural shear force at that section due to variation of
smaller thickness. Flexural shear force and flexural capacity of the neck section for
different neck thickness has shown in Fig. 4.12. In Fig. 4.13, the flexural shear
capacity and flexural shear at the neck section is ,plotted against the smaller thickness
as percentage of greater thickness.

Table 4.5. Variation of displacement, moment and shearing stress expressed as


percentage of results of uniform mat with change of smaller thickness
from 1.5 ft to 2.5 ft.
Smaller thickness 43% Smaller thickness 71% of
of l!'reater thickness l!'reater thickness
Displace- Bending Shearing Displace Bending Shearing
Location
ment % Moment 0/0 stress 0/0 -ment 0/0 Moment 0/0 stress%

Column face of 23.53 20.25 -44.74 7.84 7.00 -37.04


A2 (Une 3)
Midspan of -23.81 -56.64 97.33 7.14 -22.75 40.9
A2-B2 (Line 3)
Column face of 28.57 53.19 -9.25 8.16 16.92 -3.25
B2 (line 3)
Midspan of 4.65 -44.83 169.44 2.33 -26.54 47.22
B2-C2 (Line 3)

From this study, it has been observed that for smaller thickness 54.5% of the greater
thickness flexural shear capacity and flexural force are equal. Smaller thickness
55% of greater thickness is sufficient to take flexural shearing force across the
width provided that column strip width at least 0.4 times of the span in that
direction.

. .
41
Table 4.6 Negative moment in exterior midspan along line 3 and moment
capacity for unit width with variation in smaller thickness.

Smaller thickness

1.5 ft 1.75 ft 2.0 ft 2.5 ft 3.0 ft

Negative moment
92.45 111.04 127.24 155.25 190.20
(along line 1)
(Kip-ftlft)
Negative moment
92.52 111.26 128.71 158.73 200.05
(along line 3)
(Kip-Wft)
Minimum moment
39.31 56.6 71.05 127.35 265.73
capacity *
(kip-Wft)
Maximum moment
210.8 303.5 413.1 682.87 1424
capacity *
(Kip-Wft)
• for (= 4,000 psi, fy = 60,000 psi.

Table 4.7 Capacity and flexural shear force of the neck section with change in
smaller thickness.

Smaller Smaller thickness as Flexural shear Flexural Shear

thickness % of greater force Capacity*

ft thickness kip kip

1.5 43% 1287.89 1021.85

1.75 50% 1298.32 1192.15

2.0 57% 1295.32 1362.46

2.5 72% 1295.64 1703.08

3.5 100% 1283.55 2384.31

* for (= 4,000 psi

42
3000
__ Capacity
~ 2500 __ Flexural Shear
:,i
••
••• 2000

-
~
l:
co
co 1500
••
.s:
'"••~ 1000
"
)(

u:•• 500

0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Thickness of the neck section, ft

Fig. 4.12 Variation of total flexural shear force and ultimate flexural shear capacity
at the interior neck section with change in smaller thickness (neck

thickness).

2500
__ Capacity
c. 2000 __ Flexural Shear
:iii
.:
: 1500
.s:
Ul
e 1000
"til
u:: 500

o
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Smaller thickness as percentage of greater thickness, %

Fig. 4.13 Variation of total flexural shear force and ultimate flexural shear capacity
at the interior neck section with change in smaller thickness expressed as
percentage of greater thickness (neck thickness).
4.3 SUMMARY OF THE PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF MAT
FOUNDATION

The summary of parametric analysis of two significant parameters for design of mat
foundation is shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 Summary of parametric study of mat foundation.

Parameter Displacement Positive moment Neeative moment Shearin!' Stress


Displacement Positive moment Negative moment Shearing stress has

decreases rapidly. increases. The change decreases. Variation is very little change.
Modulus of This variation is less is more for exterior more for non-uniform
subgrade in midspan column face than mat compared to

reaction compared to that of interior column face. uniform mat.

column faces. Variation is more for


increases
non-uniform mat than
uniform mat.

Displacements Positive moment Negative moment Shearing stress

decrease below the decreases along increases. This increases at column

column and column line and variation is more for face and decreases at
Smaller
increases at increases along line exterior span midspan.
thickness
midspan. This effect between columns. This compared to interior
increases in exterior span is variation is more for span.

more pronounced. interior column than


exterior column.

43
CHAPTERS

ANALYSIS OF MAT FOUNDATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Normally mat foundations are designed with uniform thickness all over the mat.
These kinds of mats are always over designed. which is also the result of uncertainty
in analysis procedure. Since Finite element technique is the most powerful and
versatile of all the available numerical analysis techniques, so it is possible now to
look at other economic configurations of mat. In the present study mat foundation
with the plate thickened under columns, termed non-uniform mat hereafter, is
analysed and all parameters related to it are critically reviewed. Finally, a design
guideline is proposed after doing several mat problems of regular grids.

A sample problem of twelve storied building has been studied for vertical load i.e.
for dead load and live load only. Various parameters relevant to mat are selected for
study.

5.2 ANALYSIS OF MAT FOUNDATION

A twelve storied building of five bay frame in each direction with span 26'-0" has
been considered for the study. The building is symmetric in both directions.
Therefore, only one-fourth of the problem has been considered. The structure is
assumed to have uniform live load 60 psf, slab dead load 90 psf, distributed wall
load 30 psf and floor finish 25 psf. An amount of 440 lb/ft is assumed for 5" wall
along all beams, story height 10'-0" and the columns are of 24" x 24". Modulus of
subgrade reaction, k has been considered 100 kcf.

44
With dead load factor 1.4 and live load factor 1.7, the considered load case is 1.4 DL
+ 1.7 LL for the mat foundation (Fig. 5.1). Analysis of the super structure is done by
commercial software STAAD-III. Respective column loads are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Column loads for twelve storied building.

Title of Axial Force Bending Moment, Bending Moment, M,


Column (kio) M. (kio-ft) (1ao-ft)
Al 1075 37.08 37.08

A2 1754 59.67 6.08

A3 1793 60.00 1.67

BI 1754 6.08 59.67

B2 2896 10.00 10.00

B3 2960 10.25 10.25

CI 1793 1.67 60.00

C2 2957 2.75 10.67

C3 3022 2.83 2.83

Selected items for study are displacement, bending moment, shearing stress, spring
reaction along lines 1 to 17 (Fig. 5.1) on the column face and in midspan in between

the columns.

5.2.1 VariatioD of Deflection

For the purpose of design of mat foundation only column to column differential
deflections are important. Deflections below the column center and column to
column differential deflections along lines are tabulated in Table 5.2, from which it
is evident that differential settlement is higher for mat with variable thickness, but it
is well below the allowable limit. Deflections of the mat foundation along the lines I
to 9 are given in Fig 5.2. Maximum settlement occurs in the overhang portion of the
mat foundation. For all practical case, due to architectural and commercial restraint,
overhang portion is limited to 4 to 5 ft.

45
z
a :: NP"l
,'"''
1
__L
~ ~ ~~ ~ H ~!'lenter
-l J..L ~ l..1 J.._ ----
line

t
I
I
J 1 I 1 1 , 1 I Line 9
I

H 1 1 II 1 II I
~I
I
I
I
(i)
-+- I
I
I
I
.Jf ~= = F ~= F ~ =1= A =1= ~ ~:: l
I 1 I
I
I
I
I
J 1 I 1 1 II I
-I _ -1-1_ -+ - 1--1 - .l-
, - Line 6
,
- I
-I-
~
I
I
1 II I 1 I I
I
I
I
1 1 II I , I I

=1=R=j= = f
I
I 1
I
(2)
-+- I
I
I
II
1
=:== FA=F=~. t[~:~
I
I I 1 1 I I 1, I,
I
I
1 1 1 I 1 , I I
-
~
I
I
-l- -j- -rl- -t .- H- t - Line 3
I
I
I
I 1 II I II I
I
I
I
1 , I
I
I
I
. --r-r-
1 _,_ ~ _ ...!. _ ~ _ L Line 2
-+- --'-+- . -I - -H - -+ - H - .l-
, . Line 1
<n: • X
~
•...
;;~-L 2p~ ----l- 2p~-- -- - -- -1- __1;J~--- ~
I 1 I
I I I
(a) (0)

Fig. 5.1 Plan view of mat for a five bay twelve storied building.
Table 5.2 Total settlement below the column center and column to column
differential settlement along column lines.

Total Settlement Below the Column (inch)


Maximum Differential
Line A LineB LineC Settlement (inch)
Line Number
Line 1 0.6711 0.6113 0.6637 0.0598

Line 2 0.6102 0.5709 0.6184 0.0475

Line 3 0.6627 0.6185 0.6697 0.0512

Max. Col. to Col. Diff.


Maximum Differential 0.0513 Settlement
0.0609 0.0476
Settlement (inch) 0.0988

5.2.2 Variation of Bending Moment

Mat foundation is typed to face positive bending moment below the column and
negative moment at the midspan. For this example, Fig 5.3 shows the variation of
bending moment, M, along X direction of lines 1 to 9 of Fig. 5.1 and shows positive
and negative moments act at column face and midspan respectively. Fig. 5.4 shows
the variation ofM, along Z direction (across the width) oflines 10 to 17 of Fig. 5.1.
From Fig. 5.4 it is observed that high positive and negative bending moment M, and
a less positive and negative bending moment M, acts in the column line and in
between the columns, respectively. Across the width, high positive and negative
moment acts upto the width of thickened zone. Sharp change in moment variation
across the width has been observed from the start of the smaller thickness zone. A
panel can be divided into two strips across the width, a higher moment zone in the
thicker zone including the slope width and a lower moment zone in between the
thicker zone.

Like flat slab mat panel can be divided in two strips: column strip and middle strip.
Column strip varies from starting to end of thickened zone and middle strip lies in
between the column strips of the mat.

46
0.00
___ Line 2
-- Line 3 --- Line 5
-0.10
-- Line 6 --- Line 8 -+- Line 9
-0.20

"5 -0.30
.5
C -0.40
o
~ -0.50
O;
C -0.60

-0.70

-0.80

-0.90
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Disatnce from end, ft

Fig. 5.2 Variation of vertical deflection of mat along different lines.

500

01:: 400 -+-Line 1


aj! --Line 2
Co 300
:i1
~
c 200
Ql
E
0
100
==Cl
.5
0
"C
Ql
aI
-100

-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.3a Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along lines 1,2.


40

20 •...••...Line 3
~

Q.
:i o
i -20
~
o
:E -40
Cl
c
'5 -60
c
Gl
lD -80

-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.3b Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 3.

700
~ 600 -+-Line 4

Q. 500 --Line 5
:i 400
iGl 300
E
o 200
:E
Cl 100
.5
"tl 0
C
~ -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.3c Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 4,5.

. ..
60

40 ---Line 6

20

0
~
c.
:lii -20
~
••E -40
0
~ -60
Ol
c
'6
c -80
••
III
-100

-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.3d Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 6.

700
600
~ 500
Co
:iii 400 ---Line 7
..: ---Line 8
c
Gl 300
E
0 200
:5
C)
100
.5
't:l
C 0
Gl
III -100
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.3e Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 7,8.


80
60

i
~
40
20
--Line 9

'E 0
G>
E -20
o
::!! -40
Cl
c: -60
'6
i -80
III
-100
-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.3f Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 9.

200

--Line 10
150
~
Q.
~
.;
c: 100
G>
E
0
::!! 50
Cl
c:
'6
c:
G> 0
III

-50
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.4a Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 10.


-40
.50 --Line 11
.60
~
a. . -70
:i2
.: .80
c
••
E -90
0
~ -100
Ol
c
'6 -110
c
••
III .120

.130

-140
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.4b Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along line 11.

700

~ 600
.5!-500

-
•••
5; 400
E
~ 300
Cl
.5
"C
200
c
~ 100

o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.4c Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along lines 12,13.


-40

-50
~ •...•....
Line 14

•5!-
-60
'i"
Gl
E -70
o
:E
Cl -80
.5
"tl
c -90
~
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.4d Variation of bending moment M, of mat along line 14.

700

~
600
Q,
:;;: 500
~ -+-Line 15
<:
••E 400
----Line 16
0
:::;: 300
Cl
<: 200
'6
<:
••
III
100
a
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

Fig.5.4e Variation of bending moment M, of mat along lines 15,16.


A constant variation of bending moment can be assumed across the width of column
strip and middle strip from Fig 5.4. Mat panel can be considered as total beam.
Column strip and middle strip total moment at column faces and midspan is
calculated by trapezoidal rule from Fig 5.4 and summarized in Table 5.3. Column
face positive moment is the sum of column strip and middle strip positive moments
at column faces. Midspan negative moment is the sum of negative moments for
column strip and middle strip. Like flat slab, it has been observed that sum of
averages of the positive moments at column faces and midspan negative moment,
termed as panel moment, is equal to the midspan positive moment of a
corresponding simply supported beam of the mat panel.

From Table 5.3 it is observed that total panel moment is 8052.94 kip-ft. Midspan
positive moment of a corresponding simply supported beam 8278.3 kip-ft assuming
column load is distributed uniformly under the mat area.

Table 5.3 Positive and negative moment for an interior panel

Positive Negative
Moment Moment
(Kio-ft) (Kio-fi)
Column Strip 4910.00 -897.54
Middle Strip 1149.00 -1096.40
Total Panel 6059.00 -1993.94
Panel moment 8052.94

5.2.3 Variation of Shearing Stress

Variation of shear stress, S,' along lines parallel to X direction and along lines
parallel to Z direction of Fig. 5.1 has been shown in Fig. 5.5 and Fig. 5.6
respectively. From Fig. 5.5, local increase in shearing stress has been observed in the
transition zone of greater thickness to smaller thickness in the column strip. For
flexural shear, neck section is the most critical section. As mat is a slab type
structure, local failure due to flexural shear cannot occur. For a failure due to

47
-40

-50
~ --Line 17
c.
:;;: -60
.:
c
"E
0
-70
::Iii
Ol
c -80
'6
c
"
III
-90

-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.4f Variation of bending moment Mx of mat along lines 17.

30

20
.•. III __ Une2
•••• 10
.n ......- Line 3

-
III ___ lineS
•..
III
0
l/l -+-line 6
•..eu -Linea
III -10
..c -+-Line 9
l/l
-20

-30
o 4 8121620242832364044485256606468
Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.5 Variation of Shearing Stress Sxy of mat along Different lines.
flexural shear, it must occur along a line across the width. Fig 5.7 shows the
variation of shearing stress along with capacity due to flexure across the width at the
start of smaller thickness (neck section). This situation is same for a single isolated
footing under a column, where local flexural shearing stress near the column is
higher than the average shear stress and it is designed assuming an average
distribution across the width. From Fig. 5.7, capacity of the interior neck section for
flexural shear is 2167.6 kip and flexural shear force is 1900.8 kip. For design
consideration it is safe to provide a smaller thickness 0.60 t. where t. is greater
thickness near the column face. Fig. 5.6 clearly shows the variation of shearing
stress across the width, in column strip and in middle strip along lines 10 to 17.

Punching shear should be checked at <112 distance from the column face and at the
sections which can be critical. Column C3 has the highest loading. Critical sections
are at <112 distance from column face and at the neck section. Punching shear force
has been calculated by deducting the spring reactions in the inner perimeter of the
critical section from the column load. For column C3, punching shear force observed
at <112 distance away from column face and at neck section is 2576.8 kip and 2269.1
kip, respectively. Capacity for the punching shear at <112 distance away from the
column face and at the neck section are 2600.1 kip and 2477.20 kip, respectively.
For punching shear consideration, smaller thickness 0.60 t. is sufficient.

5.2.4 Variation of Spring Reaction

Variation of spring reaction is shown in Fig. 5.8 in X-direction along lines I to 8 of


Fig. 5.1. Variation of spring reaction is pronounced in exterior panel. Spring reaction
shows more variation along the column lines (lines 2, 5 & 8) than that of lines in
between the columns (lines 3, 6). Spring reaction is higher near the columns. This
reveals that reactive soil pressure variation beneath the mat foundation is not
uniform, more pressure below the column and nearby areas and less pressures away
from the columns, than the average pressure, obtained by dividing summation of the
column loads by the plan area of the mat. Therefore, panel moment calculated by
assuming an average pressure distribution for the corresponding simply supported
beam will always be on the conservative side compared to the actual panel moment.

.: ..•.
:-,"
48 ~.'
-(' .~
25

20
•••
~ 15 __ Line 11
iii
___ Line 12
•• 10
l!! -M-Line14
en•.. 5 _Une15
nI
Gl ~Une17
J:: o
III -Line 18
-5

-10
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

Fig. 5.6 Variation of Shearing Stress S,y of mat along different lines.

30
__ Shear Stress
__ Shear capacity
';) 25
•••
~ 20
III
iii
•• 15
l!!
en
;; 10
l!!
J::
III 5

o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

Fig 5.7 Variation of flexural shearing streas and flexural shear capacity of the
neck section at interior span.
30

25
a-
:;;;
.20
c --Line 1
o
:;:; __ Line2
:;: 15
--Line 3
& --Line 4
'"
.~ 10
a-
U!

o
o 4 8 12 162024283236404448 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

30

25

a-
:;;;
20
c --Line 5
o
g 15
--Line 6
-+-Line 7
&1
-Line 8
'"
c
.;: 10
a-
U!

o
o 4 8 12 1620 24 28 32 364044 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b)

Fig. 5.8 Variation of Spring reaction along (a) lines 1-4 (b) lines 6-8
5.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON DISTRIBUTION OF BENDING
MOMENT OF MAT FOUNDATION

Sensitivity study in chapter 4 reveals that positive and negative bending moment
varies significantly for mat with variable thickness with variation in modulus of
subgrade reaction. Distribution of these moments to column strip and middle strip
depends on the length to width ratio of the mat panel. Study of mat foundation
analysis on different LIB ratio has been carried out for different modulus of subgrade
reaction.

In flat slab construction, in a column supported slab, requirement of statics says that
100 percent of the applied load must be carried in each direction. Mat can be
considered as an inverted flat slab and 100% of the load should be carried in each
direction. Panel moment should be calculated considering the mat spanning in either
direction. This panel moment is distributed in column strip and middle strip critical
sections. To identify the distribution of moments in between column strip and
middle strip total nine mat of different LIB ratio has been studied with variation of
modulus of subgrade reaction. LIB ratio has been varied in the most practicable
range for 0.615, 0.77, 1.0, 1.30 and 1.625. For each case modulus of subgrade
reaction is varied for 50 kcf, 100 kcf and 200 kcf. Mat geometry, loading of mat
from columns and variation of deflection, bending moment and shear stress for
different LIB ratio and for different modulus of subgrade reaction are shown in
Appendix D.

A uniformly distributed load corresponding to vertical load is calculated dividing


summation of column loads by the mat area. Total panel moment, M, is calculated
by the following formula
M, =wxLxBxLCI/8

Where w
_L Column Loads
Total mat area

L = C/C span length of the span


B = C/C width of the panel
LeI = Clear Span from column face to face.

49
For different LIB ratio, average pressure, span length and width, panel moment is
given in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Panel moment for different LIB ratio.

Span Average Soil


Panel Width Panel Moment
LIB ratio Length, Pressure
B,ft Kip-ft
L.ft ksf
0.615 16 26 4.625 3552.2

0.77 20 26 4.492 5390.4

1.0 26 26 4.082 8278.3

1.30 26 20 4.492 7007.5

1.625 26 16 4.625 5771.7

Total moment for column strip and middle strip across the width at column faces and
midspan has been calculated by trapezoidal rule. This calculation has been done for
interior panel and exterior panel for interior span and exterior span (Fig 5.9)
separately. Summary of total moment in column strips and middle strips for different
LIB ratio has been given in Table 5.5 to Table 5.7 for different modulus of subgrade
reaction. Column face and midspan moment varies for interior span and exterior
span of interior panel and exterior panel.

Ratio of column strip and middle strip moments to total panel moment is termed as
distribution coefficients. To understand the distribution of panel moments to
different sections, total moments for column strip and middle strip sections has been
expressed as the fraction of total panel moment. Distribution coefficients for positive
and negative bending moments for column strip and middle strip is given in Table
5.8 to Table 5.10.

50
I
I

__
-~:::~~~~!:~~:~~~~:::::::~
__
u~~ne:e I
r

I 1 1 1 1 1 Iii I

r-, ---I
I I 1 1 1
-r-I---'-tp-,
1 Iii
-j

I I 1 1 1 I 1 I

1 I I I 1 1 I 1

1 I I I 1 'I 1

1 1 I I' I I ,
-Ej3-i- -I ~I- - -I-EP-I

Middle Strip Middle Strip IColumn Stri~ Middle ~trip

Centre Line

Fig. 5.9 Definition of column strip and middle strip of interior panel and exterior panel.
Table 5.5 Positive and negative bending moment in eolumn strip and middle
strip for k = 50 kef.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


LIB Interior Span Exterior Span
ratio Column face Midspan Ext. Face onnt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 2572.92 -433.68 1891.58 -1044.11 523.73
1.3 3586.11 -574.38 3045.20 -1261.22 845.26
1.0 5043.00 -869.82 4939.00 -1448.50 1041.86
0.77 3932.58 -689.19 3904.08 -1712.94 760.10
0.615 3097.00 -560.33 3160.38 -850.00 505.37
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB Interior Span Exterior Span
ratio Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 436.02 -513.96 130.53 -1377.56 -349.93
1.3 748.60 -556.62 431.19 -1711.85 -353.01
1.0 1231.53 -1070.62 1204.96 -2032.16 -303.12
0.77 1166.92 -954.75 1173.14 -1712.94 -127.13
0.615 1030.73 -831.74 1072.69 -1311.64 -50.64
Exterior Panel- Column Strip
LIB Interior Span Exterior Span
ratio Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 1484.80 -464.17 1205.35 -955.15 333.68
1.3 2443.38 -562.92 1981.03 -1176.01 422.87
1.0 3537.79 -784.15 3433.13 -1343.68 672.6
0.77 3008.41 -663.12 2964.36 -1128.87 543.05
0.615 2656.62 -578.24 2582.42 .917.56 490.6
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB Interior Span Exterior Span
ratio Column face Midspan Ext. Face onnt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 -82.58 -530.04 -376.98 -1214.8 -486.89
1.3 176.36 -619.51 -130.83 -1534.07 .559.71
1.0 515.74 -921.71 502.11 -1804.92 -544.70
0.77 639.18 .870.89 649.07 -1612.67 -325.66
0.615 671.66 -806.35 701.92 -1346.4 .154.25

51
Table 5.6 Positive and negative bending moment in eolumn strip and middle
strip for k = 100 kef.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oCInt. Midspan InUace Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 2540.85 -269.76 2120.31 -937.61 559.41
1.3 3503.98 -567.82 3199.18 -1106.06 767.86
1.0 4910.00 .897.54 4935.00 -975.20 1173.04
0.77 3827.77 -707.45 3892.64 -957.22 872.1
0.615 3005.93 -571.23 3101.44 -703.67 603.98
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oCInt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 405.50 -435.6 2042.34 -937.35 559.41
1.3 723.50 -621.56 523.66 -1453.72 -322.74
1.0 1149.00 -1096.4 1188.98 -1650.5 -226.52
0.77 3827.77 -707.45 1146.44 -1414.12 .89.04
0.615 979.24 .851.91 1032.80 -1078.20 -27.10
Exterior Panel- Column Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip.ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
1.625 1489.75 -392.66 1316.4 -848.08 342.35
1.3 2375.4 -478.60 2093.77 -1012.88 485.28
1.0 3434.5 -785.4 34838.20 -1107.80 753.47
0.77 2919.9 -671.75 2962.95 -938.40 623.58
0.615 2489.78 -583.88 2553.04 -761.24 560.32
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face orInt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip.ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip.ft)
1.625 36.76 -3674.66 .229.40 -1033.32 -429.20
1.3 187.08 -547.14 42.40 .1268.64 -482.00
1.0 514.58 907.30 556.58 -1423.48 -429.76
0.77 618.99 .874.98 669.74 -1305.66 -249.4
0.615 647.29 .810.38 695.03 .1096.38 .97.68

52
I,

Table 5.7 Positive and negative bending moment in eolumn strip and middle
strip for k = 200 kef.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oflnt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)

1.625 2490.26 -383.52 2166.31 -818.42 603.07


1.3 3421.10 -583.42 3264.53 -940.64 845.52
1.0 4763.99 -895.11 4786.97 -990.11 1318.99
0.77 3698.40 -699.52 3757.41 -772.22 998.4
0.615 2885.3 -552.22 2943.11 -559.69 712.85
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)

1.625 1470.26 -343.38 1408.1 -721.6 358.23


1.3 2305.05 -506.39 2163.60 -834.51 505.64
1.0 3309.31 -759.44 3329.25 -873.43 844.41
0.77 2814.02 -656.44 2859.90 -748.38 713.66
0.615 2388.64 -561.93 2434.20 -605.12 639.14
Exterior Panel- Column Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oflnt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)

1.625 57.66 -321.59 -94.86 -824.49 -335.36


1.3 205.60 -501.48 169.95 -983.10 -388.47
1.0 570.56 -852.69 549.54 -1050.6 -299.60
0.77 592.79 -841.80 636.89 -1001.43 -168.37
0.615 611.86 -770.66 645.05 -848.16 -50.78
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oflnt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment (kip-ft) Column (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Ext. Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)

1.625 57.66 -321.59 -94.86 -824.49 -335.36


1.3 205.60 -501.48 169.95 -983.10 -388.47
1.0 570.56 -852.69 549.54 -1050.60 -299.60
0.77 592.79 -841.80 636.89 -1001.43 -168.37
0.615 611.86 -770.66 645.05 -848.16 -50.78

53
..
.," 1. ~
Table 5.8 Distribution coefficients for Positive and negative bending moments
in column strip and middle strip for k = 50 kcf.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.faceOf
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.7243 -0.12208 0.5325 -0.29393 0.14744
1.3 0.66528 -0.10655 0.56493 -0.23398 0.1568
1.0 0.60918 -0.10507 0.59662 -0.17498 0.12585
0.77 0.5612 -0.09835 0.55713 -0.16288 0.10847
0.615 0.5365 -0.09708 0.54756 -0.14727 0.08756
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.1227 -0.14468 0.0367 -0.3878 -0.09851
1.3 0.13888 -0.10326 0.079992 -0.31757 -0.06055
1.0 0.148766 -0.12933 0.14555 -0.24548 -0.0366
0.77 0.16652 -0.13625 0.16741 -0.24444 -0.01814
0.615 0.17858 -0.1441 0.18585 -0.22729 0.008774
Exterior Panel- Column Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.41799 -0.13067 0.33932 -0.26889 0.093936
1.3 0.45328 -0.10443 0.36751 -0.21817 0.07845
1.0 0.427357 -0.09472 0.41471 -0.16231 0.08125
0.77 0.42931 -0.09463 0.423303 -0.1611 0.077495
0.615 0.44451 -0.10018 0.44742 -0.15897 0.085
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 -0.02325 -0.1492 -0.10613 -0.34198 -0.13707
1.3 0.03272 -0.11493 -0.02427 -0.28459 -0.10383
1.0 0.0623 -0.11134 0.06065 -0.21803 -0.0658
0.77 0.0912 -0.12428 0.092625 -0.23014 -0.04647
0.615 0.11637 -0.13974 0.12161 -0.23327 -0.02673

54
Table 5.9 Distribution coefficients for Positive and negative bending moments
in column strip and middle strip for k = 100 kef.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.715 -0.Q76 0.596 -0.264 0.1575
1.3 0.65 -0.1053 0.5935 -0.205 0.142
1.0 0.594 -0.1084 0.596 -0.147 0.1417
0.77 0.546 -0.10096 0.5555 -0.1366 0.1244
0.615 0.5208 -0.099 0.5374 -0.1219 0.1046
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.114 -0.1226 0.0674 -0.337 -0.083
1.3 0.134 -0.1153 0.097 -0.2697 -0.0599
1.0 0.1388 -0.1324 0.144 -0.1994 -0.0274
0.77 0.1566 -0.1401 0.1636 -0.2018 -0.00127
0.615 0.1697 -0.1476 0.179 -0.1868 -0.00326
Exterior Panel- Column Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.419 -0.1105 0.3706 -0.2387 0.0963
1.3 0.44066 -0.0976 0.389 -0.188 0.09
1.0 0.4149 -0.0949 0.4153 -0.1338 0.091
0.77 0.4167 -0.0959 0.423 -0.134 0.08899
0.615 0.4314 -0.10116 0.4423 -0.1319 0.097
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face orInt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.0103 -0.1026 0.0646 -0.2909 -0.1208
1.3 0.03471 -0.1015 0.0658 -0.2354 -0.0894
1.0 0.0622 -0.1096 0.0672 -0.1725 -0.0519
0.77 0.0883 -0.1249 0.09558 -0.1863 -0.0356
0.615 0.11215 -0.1404 0.1204 -0.1899 -0.01692

"
55
:\
Table 5.10 Distribution coefficients for Positive and negative bending moments
in column strip and middle strip for k = 200 kef.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oCInt. Midspan Int. face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.70104 -0.10797 0.60985 -0.2304 0.169774
1.3 0.634665 -0.10823 0.605619 -0.1745 0.15686
1.0 0.57548 -0.10813 0.578225 -0.11959 0.159331
0.77 0.52777 -0.09982 0.5362 -0.1102 0.14248
0.615 0.4999 -0.09567 0.50992 -0.09697 0.12351
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Columu face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.10312 -0.1087 0.061956 -0.27856 -0.07893
1.3 0.115965 -0.1146 0.106022 -0.21743 -0.05047
1.0 0.12763 -0.12915 0.13022 -0.15346 -0.01876
0.77 0.14555 -0.13742 0.15152 -0.1586 -0.00605
0.615 0.15787 -0.14237 0.16357 -0.14679 0.01618
Exterior Panel- Column Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oCInt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.4139 -0.09666 0.3964 -0.20314 0.10085
1.3 0.42762 -0.09394 0.40138 -0.15481 0.0938
1.0 0.39976 -0.09174 0.40216 -0.1055 0.102
0.77 0.40157 -0.09368 0.40812 -0.1068 0.10184
0.615 0.4139 -0.09736 0.42174 -0.10484 0.110736
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
LIB ratio Interior Span Exterior Span
Column face Midspan Ext. Face oCInt. Midspan Int.face Of
Moment Column Ext. Column
1.625 0.01623 -0.0905 -0.0267 -0.23211 -0.09441
1.3 0.03814 -0.09303 0.0315 -0.18238 -0.07207
.

1.0 0.06895 -0.103 0.06638 -0.12691 -0.0319


0.77 0.08177 -0.12013 0.09089 -0.1429 -0.02403
0.615 0.106009 -0.13352 0.11176 -0.14695 -0.0088

56
5.3.1 Summary of Variation of LIB Ratio of Mat

Length to width ratio has been varied from 0.615 to 1.625, which covers the most of
the practical ranges. Distribution coefficients vary for interior panel and exterior
panel.

(i) Effect on Distribution Coefficients for Interior Panel

As the length to width span ratio increases, interior panel distribution coefficients for
• column strip positive moment increases rapidly for interior span (Fig. 5.1Oa).
• column strip positive moment initially increases for LIB ratio upto 1.0, after
that remains constant for interior column of exterior span (Fig. 5.10a).
• column strip positive moment increases for exterior column for exterior span
(Fig.5.10a).
• column strip negative moment decreases slightly for interior span (Fig.
5.10a).
• column strip negative moment Increases rapidly for exterior span (Fig.
5.10a).
• middle strip positive moment decreases rapidly for interior column of interior
span (Fig: 5.1Ob).
• middle strip positive moment decreases rapidly for interior column of
exterior span (Fig. 5.IOb).
• exterior end of exterior span for middle strip has negative moment and it
increases rapidly (Fig. 5.1Ob).
• middle strip negative moment decreases for interior span (Fig. 5.IOb).
• middle strip negative moment for exterior span remains unchanged for LIB
ratio equal to 1.0 and after that value increases rapidly (Fig. 5.10b).

(ii) Effect on Distribution Coefficients for Exterior Panel

As the length to width span ratio increases, exterior panel distribution coefficients
for

57
0.8 __ Col.lace-Inlerior

-.,
en
c
'u
.,
IE 0.4
0.6
•• •
1 : : Span

•••.•••• Mid Span-


Interior span

0 -'-Interior
U
c 0.2
Col.face-
0
• • • • Exterior Span
:;:;
:>
•••
0
-
J:I --- Mid Span-
.;: exterior span
.!! •,. • • • •
c -0.2 II II
____ Exterior
-.c Col.face-
-0.4 Exterior Span

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75


UB Ratio

(a)

0.3 ~Col.face-lnterior
Span

-.,
en
0.2
•• •
.~ :
__ Mid Span-

--
c 0.1 Interior span
'u
.,
lE 0
• --.ll--Interior

---
0 II
U Col.lace-
c -0.1 • • """ Exterior Span
0
:;:;
• •
:> -0.2 ~MidSpan-

-
J:I
.;: Exterior span
en -0.3
is
-0.4 ---- Exterior
Col. lace.
Exterior Span
-0.5
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(b)

Fig 5.10 Distribution Coefficients at critical sections of inerior panel (a) column
Strip (b) middle strip against UB ratio for k=50 kef.
• column strip positive moment decreases slightly for interior span (Fig.
5.1Oc).
• column strip positive moment for interior column of exterior span decreases
(Fig. 5.1Oc).
• column strip positive moment for exterior column of exterior span remains
more or less unchanged (Fig. 5.1Oc).
• column strip negative moment increases slightly for interior span (Fig.
5.10c).
• column strip negative moment for exterior span remains unchanged upto LIB
ratio equal to 1.0, after that value it increases rapidly with increasing LIB
ratio (Fig. 5.IOc).
• middle strip positive moment decreases rapidly for interior span (Fig. 5.10d)
• middle strip positive moment for exterior face of interior column for
exterior span decreases at a very fast rate (Fig. 5.1 Od).
• interior face of exterior column fo"rmiddle strip of exterior span has negative
moment and it increases rapidly (Fig. 5.1Od).
• middle strip negative moment decreases for interior span (Fig. 5.IOd).
• middle strip negative moment of exterior span decreases at a faster rate for
exterior span (Fig. 5.10d).

5.3.2 Summary on Variation of Modulus of Sub grade Reaction

Modulus of subgrade reaction varies from 50 kef to 200 kef for different LIB ratio,
which covers the most practical ranges. Modulus of sub grade reaction effects the
distribution coefficients for non-uniform mat foundation. The values of distribution
coefficients for different modulus of subgrade reaction for LIB ratio equal to 1.0 are
tabulated in Table 5.11 and Table 5.12.

58
0.5 ••••••••Col. face-Interior

0.4
••• a 1
---- : :
Span

-III
c
.!!
u
0.3

0.2
__ Mid Span-
Interior span

IEGl
Cl 0.1 • -6-lnterior
tJ • • • II
CoLface-
c Exterior Span
Cl 0
:;:;
::l
• • ..• -.- Mid Span-
-
••• -0.1
.;:
.!!!
C -0.2
• • Exterior span

___ Exterior
-0.3
CoLface-
Exterior Span
-0.4
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

( C )

0.2 --+- Col. face-Interior


Span

0.1
J!l _Mid Span-
c Interior span
'u••

::
0
IE
••
Cl -6-1nterior
tJ Col. face-
c -0.1 Exterior Span
.2
"S
•••
.;: -0.2 ~MidSpan .
-;; Exterior span
is
-0.3 ___ Exterior
CoI.face-
-0.4 Exterior Span

0.5 0.75 1.25 1.5 1.75


UB Ratio

(d)

Fig 5.10 Distribution Coefficients at critical sections of exerior panel (c) column
Strip (d) middle strip against UB ratio for k=50 kef.

,~
. ...,
I
~••__f
__ CoL lace-Interior
0.8
Span

0.6 :~
-••"
c
U 0.4
••• I ••..•..•• Mid Span-
Interior span

Ii:
........-Interior
"
0
(J CoLfaoe-

-
0.2

-c
.2 • • • •• Exterior Span

-
___ Mid Span-
@'"

:
0
Exterior span
•• :
i5
-0.2
•• :
-: ____ Exterior
CoLfaoe-
Exterior Span
-0.4
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(a)

___ Col.face-Interior
0.3
Span

0.2

-••"
c
U
0.1
•••
00:::::::::::::
::
.-- Mid Span-
Interior span

Ii:
"
0
tJ
0 •• • -.-Interior
CoLfaoe-
c • ...• Exterior Span
0 -0.1
;;
• • • • • --M- Mid Span-
'"
-
.0
o: -0.2 Exterior span
••
i5
-0.3 ____ Exterior
Col.face.
Exterior Span
-0.4
0.5 0.75 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(b)

Fig 5.11 Distribution Coefficients at critical sections of inerior panel (a) column
Strip (b) middle strip against UB ratio for k=100 kef.
0.5 -...... Col. face-I "terior
Span

0.4
••• 6
: :
-
__ Mid Span-
••c 0.3 Interior span
.!!!
u
;: 0.2
••
0 -6--lnterior
0 Col.face-
c 0.1 • • • • • Exterior Span
.S!
-
..,
::l

-
0 ____ Mid Span-
'': Exterior span
••
i5 -0.1 • • • • •
___ Exterior
-0.2
Col.face-
Exterior Span
-0.3
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(c)

~Col.face.lnterior
0.3 Span

-••••
c
'u
0.2

0.1
•....
.-. Mid Span-
Interior span

;: : :
:: : -
••0 0 -t.--Interior
0 Col.face-
c Exterior Span
.S! -0.1 a =I
"S
..,
'': -0.2
____ Mid Span-
Exterior span
OJ
i5 -0.3
___ Exterior
Col.face-
-0.4 Exterior Span
0.5 0.75 1.25 1.5 1.7
UB Ratio

(d)

Fig 5.11 Distribution Coefficients at critical sections of exerior panel (c) column
Strip (d) middle strip against US ratio for k=100 kef.
0.8 ~Col.face-Interior
Span

0.6 ~
__ Mid Span-
J!l
e
••• Interior span

"
'ij
IE
0.4
-o-Ioterior
"
0
U Col.face-
e 0.2 •• Exterior Span
0
:;:: •••• •• •• ••
::l
.0 ~MidSpan-
0

-: :
'l:
~III
Exterior span
is •• • •
-0.2
~Exterior
Col.fate-
Exterior Span
-0.4
0.5 0.75 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(a )

0.3 -+-Col.face-lnterior
Span

0.2
~
III •• __ Mid Span.
Interior span
e 0.1 t::::::::::::::
"
'ij

----- .
-
IE
0•• 0 II
-o-lnterior
U
e
0
:;:: -0.1
::l
•••
- ---
Col.face-
Exterior Span

Mid Span-
.0
'C
~III -0.2
= Exterior span
is
~ ____ Exterior
-0.3
Col.face-
Exterior Span
-0.4
0.5 0.75 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(b)

Fig 5.12 Distribution Coefficients at critical sections of inerior panel (a) column
Strip (b) middle strip against UB ratio for k=200 kef.
0.5 __ CoLlace-lnterior
Span
0.4 ~ : I
___ MidSpan-
-••
••c:
.u
0.3 Interior span

IE 0.2
••
0
..........Interior

.,
0
c: 0.1
0
•• • • • • CoLlace-
Exterior Span

.
::I 0
.c Mid Span-

-
--N-
.;:
Exterior span
••
C -0.1 n • ~
__ Exterior
-0.2
CoLface-
Exterior Span
-0.3
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(c )

0.2 --+- Col.face-lnterior


Span

-••
•• 0.1
c:
.u
a
~MidSpan-
Interior span

IE o
••o ..........Interior

.,
o
c:
o
::I -0.1
.c --N-
Col. face-
Exterior Span

Mid Span-
Exterior span
~
C -0.2
__ Exterior
CoLlace-
Exterior Span
-0.3
0.5 0.75 1.25 1.5 1.75
UB Ratio

(d)

Fig 5.12 Distribution Coefficients at critical sections of exerior panel (c) column
Strip (d) middle strip against US ratio for k=200 kcf.
Table 5.11 Distribution coefficients for positive and negative bending moments
of interior panel with variation of different modulus of subgrade
reaction.

Interior Panel- Column Strip


Modulus of Interior Span Exterior Span
Subgrade Column face Midspan Ext. Face orInt. Midspan Int. face Of
Reaction Column Ext. Column
kcf
50 0.60918 .0.10507 0.59662 .0.17498 0.12585
100 0.59400 .0.10840 0.59600 .0.14700 0.14170
200 0.57548 .0.10813 0.57823 .0.11959 0.15933
Interior Panel- Middle Strip
Modulus of Interior Span Exterior Span
Subgrade Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Reaction Column Ext. Column
kcf
50 0.14877 .0.12933 0.14555 .0.24548 .0.03660
100 0.13880 .0.13240 0.14400 .0.19940 -0.02740
200 0.12763 .0.12915 0.13022 -0.15346 .0.01876

Table 5.12 Distribution coefficients for Positive and negative bending moments
of exterior panel with variation of different modulus of subgrade
reaction.

Exterior Panel- Column Strip


Modulus of Interior Span Exterior Span
Subgrade Column face Midspan Ext. Face of Int. Midspan Int.face Of
Reaction Column Ext. Column
kcf
50 0.42736 .0.09472 0.41471 .0.16231 0.08125
100 0.41490 .0.09490 0.41530 .0.13380 0.09100
200 0.39976 .0.09174 0.40216 .0.10550 0.10200
Exterior Panel- Middle Strip
Modulus of Interior Span Exterior Span
Subgrade Column face Midspan Ext. Face orInt. Midspan Int.face Of
Reaction Column Ext. Column
kcf
50 0.06230 .0.11134 0.06065 -0.21803 -0.06058
100 0.06220 .0.10960 0.06072 -0.17250 -0.05190
200 0.06895 -0.10300 0.06638 .0.12691 .0.03190

59
(i) Effect on Distribution Coefficients For Interior Panel

As the modulus of sub grade reaction increases interior panel distribution coefficients
for
• column strip positive moment decreases slightly for interior span (Table
5.11).
• column strip positive moment remains more or less unchanged for interior
column of exterior span (Table 5.11).
• column strip positive moment Increases slowly for exterior column of
exterior span (Table 5.11).
• column strip negative moment remains unchanged for interior span (Table
5.11).
• column strip negative moment decreases rapidly for midspan of exterior span
(Table 5.11).
• middle strip positive moment decreases for column face of interior span
(Table 5.11).
• middle strip positive moment increases for interior column of exterior span .
(Table 5.11).
• exterior end of exterior span for middle strip has negative moment and it
decreases moderately (Table 5.11).
• middle strip negative moment decreases for interior span (Table 5.11).
• middle strip negative moment decreases rapidly for exterior span (Table
5.11).

(ii) Effect on Distribution Coefficients for Exterior Panel

As the modulus of sub grade reaction Increases, exterior panel distribution


coefficients for
• column strip positive moment decreases moderately for interior span (Table
5.12).
• column strip positive moment remainS unchanged for interior column of
exterior span (Table 5.12).

60
.,
'.

• column strip positive moment for exterior column of exterior span increases (Table
5.12).
• column strip negative moment decreases slightly for interior span (Table 5.12).
• column strip negative moment decreases moderately for exterior span (Table
5.12).
• middle strip positive moment increases slightly for interior span (Table 5.12).
• middle strip positive moment for exterior face of interior column for exterior
span changes slightly (Table 5.12).
• interior face of exterior column for middle strip of exterior span has negative
moment and it decreases rapidly (Table 5.12).
• middle strip negative moment for interior span decreases (Table 5.12).
• middle strip negative moment decreases rapidly for exterior span (Table 5.12).

5.3 DISCUSSION ON ANALYSIS OF MAT FOUNDATION

Mat foundation has loading from column as concentrated load and reactive soil pressure
has variation, which has high value near the column face and lower value near the
midspan. The mat panel is assumed as a total beam and total moment in a panel is
calculated for the panel as simply supported beam. The total panel moment is on the
conservative side. Panel moment is calculated for each panel for each direction. This panel
moment is distributed in column strip and middle strip critical sections.

Distribution of total panel moment for mat with variable thickness depends largely on the
length to width Span ratio of the panel and in some extent on the modulus of subgrade
reaction. The distribution of this total panel moment as positive and negative moments to
critical sections of column strip and middle strip can be calculated from Fig. 5.10 to 5.12
depending on LIB span ratio and modulus of subgrade reaction.

This method is valid until vertical load governs the design. In most buildings up to fifteen
story, dead load along with reduced live load is the governing case. Up to that range a mat
of regular grid design is very simple. When a complicated case arises, one should go for
finite element solution.

61
CHAPTER 6

DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Relative economy in design can be achieved by finite element analysis. Confidence


will be gained in more economic shaping and dimensioning of mat foundation.
Ultimate strength design method of American Concrete Institute is followed.

6.2 DIFFICUL TIES IN FORMULATING THE MAT BEHAVIOR

Some structures are complicated to analyze but simple to categorize. For example,
cassion foundation analysis is difficult but its load pattern and geometry do not vary
much. So, an approximate analysis based on parametric study is simple to develop .-
and simpler and efficient in use.

Mat is simple. Once everything is set by engineers and architects for a particular
project, it has a relatively small number of parameters to be dealt with, such as
elastic properties of mat material, modulus of sub grade reaction of the supporting
soil and thickness. Difficulty with the formulation of the characteristics of mat
arises from its loading pattern.

Structurally mat acts integrally with the building frame it supports and resists loads
which do not act on it directly but comes through the frame. To analyze mat,
separately moments and axial forces produced in response to external loads acting
on the frame is calculated first and applied on mat later. Locations of these columns
i.e. locations of these loads depend on architectural planning of the building and

62
column spacing. Two other important factors involved in load calculation is number
of stories and the number of bays of the building frame supported by the mat.

Usual1y, columns having more or less uniform spacing fol1ows a regular grid
pattern special1y for up to fifteen storied building structures. Magnitude of load
varies depending on column spacing and number of stories. Number of bays also
can vary. Mat foundation is provided beneath the super structure to distribute the
load to substratum with uniform pressure.

It is possible to obtain an approximate solution for mat foundation for having


column spacing and location in a regular grid pattern which is very common in most
cases. For unusual, irregular cases, one must go for finite element solution.

Non-uniform mat foundation is compared with flat slabs with drop panels. Flat slab
is subjected to uniform pressure from dead load and live load where slab is
supported on columns at the corner of the slab. Similar is the situation in the case of
non-uniform mat foundation. It can be considered as an inverted flat Slab. Column
load is applied on the thick slab and reactive soil pressure generates on the bottom
face of the slab.

This reactive soil pressure is not uniform but varies a lot along the span. High
reactive soil pressure acts under the column and it's surrounding zone. This pressure
is less away from the column face, near the midspan.

In finite element analysis, soil is modeled with spnng elements. Modulus of


subgrade reaction is concentrated at the corner nodes of element. Reaction of spring
represents the soil pressure. Variation of spring reaction in mat foundation and in an
interior panel is shown by contour diagram of Fig. 6.1 and Fig. 6.2 respectively. In
Fig. 6.3 spring reaction variation is shown along column line and line in between
the columns.

63
Contour Diaqram of Spring Reaction
70

60
~
"
.~ SO
..••
N
40
c
~
0'"
..•
u
c
• 30

"•
.~
g
20

10

Distance Along X Axis, ft

Fig. 6.1 Variation of spring reaction in the plan area of mat.

Contour Diagram of Spring ractic:n For An Interior Panel

..
A '"
@;"
~ 55

iA
iJ'. ~
"
.~
..•• '"
N

!
..• "'
u•I;
"•
.~
g

35

.., <!J
.., •••
35
"' '" 35
'"
Distanc& Along X Axis,ft

Fig. 6.2 Variation of spring reaction in an interior panel of mat.


30

__ Extenor Column Line __ Exterior Span Cen.line


25 -6-lntenor Column Line """*-Intenor Span Cen.line
Co
:i2
c• 20
o
~
nI 15
ell
II::
Cl
c
.;: 10
Co
l/l

o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.3 Variation of spring reaction along column lines and in centerline in
between the columns.

6.3 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR MAT FOUNDATION

Mat is a two way flexural member supporting super structures and directly supported by
soil. Naturally, design of mat is governed by deflection, bending moment and shear force
considerations. In order to be structurally safe, mat must be strong enough to resist the
moments and shears produced by the column loads. Deflection of mat must be within
allowable limits to avoid any damage to superstructure.

6.3.1 Deflection Requirements For Mat Foundation

Flotation effect and plate behavior enable most settlements to be limited to tolerable
magnitudes. Also, it is easier to conceal any reasonable amount of overall settlement by
providing higher plinth level initially. A problem of considerable concern is differential
settlement, which may induce detrimental stresses in the superstructure. This is why
strict control of differential settlement is necessary.

64
Mc Donais and Skempton (1955) made a study of 98 buildings which was later
substantiated by Grant et. AI. (1974) from a study of 95 buildings of more recent
construction. Also, Fled (1965) investigated a large number of specific structures.
All these sources, give rise to a conclusion that for mat foundation on clay,
recommended design differential settlement is 2.5 to 4 inches and for satisfactory
differential settlement should never be greater than 3 to 5 inches. For mat on sand
the respective ranges are 1.5 to 2.5 inches and 2 to 3 inches. These are however safe
ranges determined from only statistical surveys. According to USSR building code,
acceptable slope between two points of mat supporting concrete frame structures is
0.002, with an average maximum settlement of 4 inches.

According to BNBC, allowable or limiting settlement of a building structure will


depend on nature of the structure, the foundation and the soil.. As a general rule, a
total settlement of 25 mm and a differential settlement of 20 mm between the
columns in most buildings shall be considered safe for buildings on isolated
footings. Buildings on raft can usually tolerate greater total settlements.

6.3.2 Design of Mat Under Bending Moment

Design of mat for bending moment is straight forward. Since mat suffers from two
directional bending, strips of mat is selected in two perpendicular directions and the
strips are designed as beams for critical positive (upside compression) and negative
(bottom side compression) moments. ACI code restricts that a minimum steel ratio
be maintained for any section, both near the top and near the bottom of mat.
Although design positive moments should be those at the faces of the columns
according to ACI code. Formula used for calculation are given below.
Effective Depth, d = t - clear cover.
Steel Ratio, p = Aslbd

Maximum Steel ratio, pmax = 0.75 x 0.85 x jJ, x f; x 87000


I fy 87000 + fy

65
1.'-4000
f11 = 0.85 - 0.05 x ' andO.65 ~ Pt ~ 0.85
1000
Minimum Steel ratio, pmin = 200/fy (fy in psi)

Ultimate Moment capacity, Mu = rpPiybd'(1- 0.59 Pi;)


!,

6.3.3 Design of Mat Under Shear Force

Perhaps the most important design criteria for mat foundation is the shear force.
Since mat is a plate structure, shear reinforcements is avoided for practical
considerations. Instead mat is made sufficiently thick to encounter shear. Presence of
heavy column loads concentrated on very small areas makes considerations of
punching shear, in addition to flexural shear, essential. As par ACI code, punching
shear is calculated as the total shear force acting on the surface of a peripheral
section around the column under consideration, taken at distance d/2 from each face
of that column, where d is the effective depth of mat. Physically, punching shear is
the column load less the total soil pressure under the punching area of that column.
Both the flexural and punching shear stresses must be lower than the respective ACI
shear capacities of the mat section. According to ACI code, flexural shears are to
be considered are those at a distance d away from the column faces. ACI design
formula for shear capacities are

Ultimate punching shear strength, vpu = 4rp.[l

Ultimate flexural shear strength, Vru = 2rp.[l

Where <pis the strength reduction factor and equal to 0.85.

6.4 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR MAT FOUNDATION WITH


VARIABLE THICKNESS

For structural design of mat, differential settlement is more important than total
settlement. For structural consideration of a building structure, column to column
differential settlement is the main concern. Use of non-uniform mat foundation
66

"
slightly increases this differential settlement but it remains well below the
allowable range.

Plan area of mat can be divided into two distinct zones. The first of these includes
neighborhoods of the columns where high shears and positive moments occur and
the second region consists of the areas away from the columns which are subject to
high negative moments but low shear forces.

Morshed (1996) and Sutradhar (1999) proposed that thicker part of the mat
foundation is designed considering the punching shear force. This thicker part is
proposed to extend equal to effective depth away from the column face and sloping
part width equal to 0.577 times the greater thickness. This proposal for length of
thicker part is constant for all span length. It should vary with the span length. In
flat slab, drop panel or thickened part shall be at least 0.33 times of the span. But it
should be sufficient to keep the punching shear stress below the allowable limit.
Smaller slab thickness is taken as 2/3 of greater thickness for flat slab with drop
panel. In mat foundation of variable thickness Sutradhar proposed to keep smaller
thickness 2/3 of greater thickness as in flat slab. From parametric study on smaller
thickness in Chapter 4 it has been observed that smaller thickness can be taken
60% of greater thickness.

Thicker part of the mat can be provided in two ways, extra thickness below the slab
or extra thickness over the slab.

From structural point of view second one is always preferable. For this type extra
thickness always remains on the compression side. In addition to shear and vertical
compressIOn stresses, horizontal compressive stresses caused by the bending
moments act above the neutral plane on a perimeter section. When the extra
thickness is below the slab, it is on the tension side. Horizontal tensile stresses
caused by the bending moments act below the neutral plane.

67
From architectural and commercial point of view, extra thickness of the mat over
the slab is not preferable. Since this place is used for storage and car parking. The
limitation of this type can be overcome very easily by filling the hollow over the
slab with low cost materials like sand, bricks and providing a thin layer of concrete
over it to get a level surface.

From construction point of view, second one is preferable. It is always easy to


construct additional thickness over the slab.

Mat of variable thickness will not only reduce the concrete volume but also reduce
the reinforcement where minimum reinforcement governs.

6.5 A NEW DESIGN APPROACH FOR MAT WITH VARIABLE


THICKNESS

The parametric study reveals that the design of regular shaped mat with variable
thickness follow some well defined trends. The behavior of such a mat is compared
with flat slab having drop panel and it is considered as inverted flat slab. Based on
these findings, a design approach for mat with variable thickness is presented in the
following steps:

Step 1 : Mat foundation is modeled in the following way

(i) The problem should be idealised first with a geometry of variable


thickness where extra thickness is on the top face of the slab.
(ii) Greater thickness, tg for mat is calculated from punching shear estimated
as 0.95 x maximum column axial force.
(iii) Smaller thickness, Is can be taken as 0.60 tg •

68
d, d,

OAt,

t, ~0.6t,

0.4 x Span Length


~I
Fig. 6.4 Guideline for selecting cross sectional geometry for mat with variable
thickness

(iii) Width of greater thickness shall not be less than de from the column face
where de is effective depth.
(iv) Width of the sloping part from the greater thickness to smaller thickness
should be such that the length of thicker zone is at least equal to 0.40
times the span in that direction (Fig. 6.4).

Step 2 : An approximate analysis can be done instead of finite element analysis as


follows

(i) An equivalent distributed load, w for the vertical load i.e. dead load
along with live load can be obtained by
L Column Loads
w==------
Total Mat Area

(ii) Mat is assumed to span in each direction. Steps (ii) to (vii) shall be
repeated in each direction.
(iii) Mat panel is divided into column strip and middle strip. Column strip
width ranges from start of the sloping part to the end of sloping part
including the width of constant greater thickness. Middle strip width
ranges in between column strips.

69
(iv) Total panel moment, Mt can be obtained by

where Le = Center to center span distance of columns,


Be = Center to center distance of columns along width of panel,
Lei = Clear span length, face to face distance of columns.

(v) Calculate modulus of subgrade reaction for the supporting soil.


(vi) Calculate span ratio, m = Le/Be.
(vii) Considering the modulus of sub grade reaction and span ratio, m total
panel moment is distributed to column strip and middle strip positive and
negative moments multiplying the panel moment by distribution
coefficients according to Fig. 5.10 to Fig. 5.12 or from Table 5.8 to 5.10.
Values other than those indicated in the charts, interpolation can be
made.
(viii) Reinforcement for column strip shall be placed in the entire column strip
width with an uniform distribution. Reinforcement for middle strip shall
be placed uniformly for the entire middle strip.
(ix) In any section, reinforcement shall not be smaller than minimum
reinforcement according to ACI code.

This simplified method is subjected to the following restrictions:

(i) There shall be a minimum of three continuous spans in each direction.


(ii) The panel shall be rectangular, with the ratio of the longer to shorter
spans within a panel not greater than 2.
(iii) The successive span lengths in each direction shall not differ by more
than 1/3 the span.
(iv) This method is applicable for high rise buildings where mat foundation
design governs due to vertical load i.e. dead load and live load.
(v) Mat has column arrangement in a regular grid pattern.
(vi) Foundation soil condition is uniform below the mat area.

70
6.6 DESIGN EXAMPLE

To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, a complete design example of


a mat with variable thickness has been carried out for a ten storied building with
three bay in each direction. This mat is assumed to have 16 columns, each 20 inches
square in cross section , spaced 20 ft apart and story height 10'-0". The structure is
located in Khulna city.

Other design data for the analysis are


Modulus of sub grade reaction is 100 kcf.
Basic wind speed = 230 km/hour
Slab Dead load = 90 psf
Distributed wall load = 30 psf
Floor Finish = 30 psf
Live load = 60 psf
An amount of 440 lb/ft for 5" wall is assumed along all the beams.

Plan of the mat is shown in Fig. 6.5.


The analysis of the superstructure has done with STAAD-PRO a well known
software. Two loading cases are considered.
LOADING I = 1.4 x Dead load + 1.7 x Live load
LOADING 2 = 0.75 x (1.4 x Dead load + 1.7 x Live load +1.7 x Wind load)
Column loads for both load cases are given in Table 6.1

Maximum estimated Punching Shear = 0.95* 1562.9 kip


= 1484.75 kip
For fc =4000 psi,
Greater thickness required for punching shear = 2'-8"
Smaller thickness required = 0.60x 2.66 = 1'-7"
Width of Greater Thickness = 1'-7"
Width of column Strip = 7.7 ft

71
Z W'IND

3'-10'
_._._._._.
@
I.
_._.,-_._._._._._.-
20' 20' .20'
_._._._._._,_._,_._._.~._._._,_._,_._,-,_._._._-_.~.-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'_
-_._._._._._--_. __ .~._-_._._._._-_._._._.
•• -.-.~.-._.-
__ ._._._._._-._._. __ ._._._._._._._._._._.,
3'-10'

t
"-- SYMMetry Line :

0i
I
;
10'
,
is., "C5 ~ ~
-
1
(il
,
LJ ~ ~ ~
i
i
i i
i i
i i
i
I
(}l -- i 20'
,
i i
i i
i
C1 C2 C3 C4 i i
i
i
(2)
(j)
r,
LJ
r,
L.J I r,
L,J I I r.,
LJ
t
--l I I
I I
I I I
I I
3'-10'
-r-X
I i i i i i I I I I I
I i i i i I i i i i i i

(~) @ (~) @) (fD <[~ @J(8) (@i @@.

Fig.6.5 Plan area of mat ofa ten storied building with three bay .

. ~;,:~""...
. i,,..
~. \

II'~-"'"
Only half of the mat is analysed due to symmetry of the structure. Table 6.1 shows
the column loads obtained from frame analysis of the building frame.

Table 6.1 Column loads from the super structure.

Loadinl! 1 Loadinl! 2
Axial Moment Moment Axial Moment Moment
Column
Force about x- aboutZ Force about X aboutZ
No axis
axis axis axis
(kiD) (kiD-ft) (kio-ft) (kiD) (kiD-ft) (kiD-ft)
Cl 604 8.82 -8.82 332 6.42 310.17
C2 969 9.92 -2.08 726 7.42 343.08
C3 969 9.92 2.08 726 7.42 346.16
C4 604 8.82 8.82 581 6.67 321.25
C5 969 2.08 -9.92 597 1.50 344.5
C6 1563 3.58 -3.58 1171 2.72 380.5
C7 1563 3.58 3.58 1172 2.68 385.90
C8 969 2.08 9.92 855 1.63 360.25

Total Column Load for Loading I = 8202 kip


Plan Area of the Mat = 33.88' x 67.76'
= 2295.7 sft.
Equi valent soil pressure = 8202/2295.7 ksf
= 3.576 ksf

Total panel Moment,


M = wxL, xB, xL"
8
=3.576 x 20 x 20 x(20-1.5)
=3300.65 kip-ft
LIB ratio of the span, m = 20/20 = 1.0
Modulus of sub grade reaction = 100 kcf

For these two parameters, m and modulus of subgrade reactions, coefficients for
Table 5.10 is applicable.
Column Strip Width = 7.7 ft
Middle Strip Width = 12.3 ft
72

. '. t
For interior panel, Interior Span
Column Strip Positive Moment = 3300.65 x 0.594 kip-ft
= 1960.58 kip-ft
Column Strip Negative Moment = 3300.65 x 0.1084 kip-ft
= 357.79 kip-ft

Middle Strip Positive Moment = 3300.65 x 0.1388 . kip -ft


= 458.13 kip-ft
Middle Strip Negative Moment = 3300.65 x 0.1324 kip-ft
= 437. kip -ft
Moments for all the critical sections are obtained by multiplying the corresponding
coefficients of Table 5.9 and and total moments for column strip and middle strips
are shown in Table 6.2. These are the total positive or negative moments for the
column strip and middle strip for the critical sections those govern the design.
Critical section moments are divided by corresponding width of the strips to obtain
the design moment per unit width (Table 6.3). Reinforcement calculation has been
done for the strips in each direction for the moment shown in Table 6.3 considering
the ACI minimum requirement. Required reinforcement for unit width has been
presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.2 Bending Moment for Column Strip and Middle Strip

Interior Snan Exterior Span


Column face Ext. Face of Int.face Of
Midspan Midspan
Moment Int. Ext.
Column Column
(kip-ft) (kip-ft)
lkin-ft) (kio-m (kio-ft\
Interior Panel- 1960.58 -357.79 1967.18 -485.19 467.70
Column Strip
Interior Panel- 458.13 .437.00 475.29 -658.15 -90.44
Middle Strio
Exterior Panel- 1369.44 -313.23 1370.76 -441.62 300.36
Column Strip
Exterior Panel- 205.30 -361.75 221.80 -569.36 -171.30
Middle Strio

73
Table 6.3 Bending Moment! unit width for Column Strip and Middle Strip.

Interior Span Exterior Soan


Ext. Face of Int.face Of
Column face Midspan Ext.
Midspan Int.
Moment (kip-ftlft) Column Column
(kip-ftlft) (kio-ftffU (kin-ftlftl (kin-ftfft)
Int. Pan.- Col. 255.00 -46.47 255.5 -63.02 37.96
Strio
Int. Pan.- 59.50 -35.47 38.58 -53.42 -7.34
Middle Strin
Ext. Pan.- 177.85 -40.68 178.02 -57.35 39.00
Column Strio
Ext. Pao.- 16.66 -29.36 18.00 -46.21 -13.90
Middle Strin

Table 6.4 Required reinforcement! unit width for Column Strip and Middle
Strip.

Required Reinforcement I unit width


Ext. Face of Int.face Of
Column face Midspan Ext.
Midspan Int.
Moment (sq.in/ft) Column
(sq.in/ft) Column
(sq.in/ft) (sa.in/ft) (sn.in/ft)
Int. Pan.- Col. 2.059 -0.689 2.059 -0.946 1.16'
Strio
Int. Pan.- 0.891 -0.620' 0.620' -0.796 -0.620'
Middle Strin
Ext. Pan.- 1.413 -0.620' 1.413 -0.857 1.16'
Column Strio
Ext. Pan.- 0.620 -0.620' 0.620' -0.685 -0.620'
Middle Strio
* Governed by minimum reinforcement.

Design of mat foundation shows that design of a considerable amount of area is


governed by minimum reinforcement. Use of mat with variable thickness, in those
areas of smaller thickness zone, governed by minimum reinforcement, significant
economy is achieved not only from amount of concrete but also from amount of
steel.

74
6.7 COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION

The moments across the width of critical sections are not constant. For design
purposes, mat panel is divided into column strips and middle strips. Moments are
not constant across the width of column strip and middle strip. Since, mat is plate
type structure, a small part of the structure cannot fail alone. Moments may be
considered constant within the bounds of column strip and middle strip. The total
moment along the strip remains the same. Such an approximation is always done III

flat slab.

This approximation and finite element solution for both load cases is shown in Fig.
6.6 to Fig. 6.10. The variation of bending moment, Mx for unit width along column
lines and center lines in between coiumns in X direction is shown Fig. 6.6. Fig. 6.7
shows the variation of M, for unit width across the width. From Fig. 6.6 and Fig 6.7
it is observed that there is local increase in bending moment at the column faces. At
column faces it is always higher than the approximation. Away from the column
face with in the column strip it is always below the approximation. Table 6.5 shows
the total bending moment of column strip and middle strip critical sections for
loading I and loading 2 along with the approximation. From Table 6.5 and Fig. 6.6
and Fig. 6.7 it can be concluded that assumed approximation fits the finite element
solution well.

This example is analysed with conventional method for loading I. Results of Finite
Element analysis, Proposed approximate method and Conventional method for
strips equal to panel width centered on column line are shown in Table 6.6, from
which, it appears that proposed approximate method gives better approximation of
moments of mat foundation with variable thickness than conventional method. In
conventional method, uniform distribution of moment is assumed for column strip
and middle strip which is far away from the actual solution. In the proposed method
bending moment is different for column strip and middle strip and close to finite
element solution.

75
300
--Loading 1
--Loading 2
250 -+- Approximation
~

Co 200
:i2
>< 150
:iE
.;
c
GI 100
E
0
:iE 50
Cl
.S
'C 0
C
GI
al -50

-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.6a Variation of bending moment, Mx along line 1 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.

300
--Loading 1
--Loading 2
~ 250 -..... Approximation
Co
:i2 200
><
:iE 150
.;
c
GI 100
E
0 50
:iE
Cl
c 0
'6
c -50
GI
al
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.6b Variation of bending moment, Mx along line 2 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.
~.
, ,

30
•...•...•.Loading 1
20 ___ Loading 2
__ Approximation
10
o
i
GI = -10
~i-20
Cl '"
c -30
'6
c -40
GI
1XI -50
-60
-70
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.6c Variation of bending moment, Mx along line 3 for loading I, Loading 2 and
approximation.

400
350 •...•...•.Loading 1

~ --- Loading 2
300 __ Approximation
Co
:;;:
250
><
:!; 200
-c
GI
E
150
0 100
:!;
Cl 50
.!:
"tl
C 0
GI
1XI -50

-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.6d Variation of bending moment, Mx along line 4 for loading I, Loading 2 and
approximation.

.
.. ••
.,. ~
400
~ 350 --- Loading1
Q.
--Loading 2
:i2 300 -6- Approximation

>< 250
:E
,.;
200
5i 150
~ 100
:E 50
CI
c
'5 0
5i -50
a:I
-100
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.6e Variation of bending moment, Mx along line 5 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.

60

~ 40
Q.
:i2
>< 20
:E
,.; 0
c
Ql

~ -20
:E
CI -40
c
'5 --- Loading1
c
Ql
-60 --Loading 2
a:I -.- Approximation
-80
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.6f Variation of bending moment, Mx along line 6 for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.


120

Symmetry
100 -+-Loading 1
Line
--Loading 2
__ Approximate
~ 80
a.
:i
60
•••c
Gl
~
E 40
0
:E 20
CI
c
'6 0
C
Gl
lD
-20

-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7a Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 7 for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.

120
100 Symmetry
~Loading1 Line
•••
C
Gl
80 __ Loading 2

E=
~= •
CIa.
c .-
.- ..•
60
40
-.t- Approximate
\
'tl 20
c
Gl
lD o
-20
-40
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7b Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 8 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.
0
--Loading 1 Symmetry
___ Loading 2
Line
..; -20 __ Approximate
c
Gl
E -40
~~
CIa.•
._c .>0:
.-
-60
't:l
C
Gl
III
-80

-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7c Variation of bending moment, M, along lines 9 for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.

400

350 Symmetry
--Loading 1 Line
i 300
--- Loading 2
Gl
__ Approximate
8=250

~ 1
c .-
:c
200
.>0: 150
c
~ 100
50

o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7d Variation of bending moment, M, along lines 10 for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.
400
--Loading 1 Symmetry
350 ___ Loading 2 Line
.: 300 __ Approximate
c
g =: 250
ell

==CIa.
~ 200
:cc:';:
c
150
ell
III 100

50
o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7e Variation of bending moment, M, along lines II for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.

.: -20
c
ell

g=:
==CIa.
~ -40
c .-
.- ..•
"C
ell
--Loading 1
III -60 --- Loading 2
__ Approximate Symmetry
Line

-80
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7f Variation of bending moment, M, along lines 12 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.
400
Symmetry
350 --Loading 1
____ Loading 2 Line
.;
c 300 •...••.•..•
Approximate
ell
g=250
~~200
CIa.
C .-
\
:c.>o= 150
C
ell 100
In
50
o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7g Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 13 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.

400
__ Loading 1 Symmetry
350 ____ Loading 2 Line

.; 300 •...••.•..•
Approximate
C
ell
250 ~
g=
~ ~ 200
CIa.
C .-
._ .>0=
'tl 150
C
ell
In 100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7h Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 14 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.
o
--Loading 1 Symmetry Line

.,; -20 --- Loading 2


c __ Approximate
Gl
E -40
~~,
CIa.
c .-
.-'tl --= -60
C
Gl
m -80

-100
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7i Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 15 for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.

120
--Loading 1 Symmetry
100
Line
--- Loading 2
.,; 80
c -- Approximate
Gl
E;:: 60
~i:!
, 40
CIa.
c .-
.-'tl --= 20
C
Gl
m 0

-20

-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7j Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 16 for loading I, loading 2 and
approximation.
Table 6.5 Bending Moment for Column Strip and Middle Strip for loading 1,
loading 2 and Approximation

Interior Soan Exterior Soan


Column Midspan Inl. face
Load Case Midspan Exl. Face of Exl.
Strip face orInl.
Location Momenl Column
Column (kip-fl)
(kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft)
(kio-ft)
Interior 1.4D+1.7L 1902.00 -305.20 1891.94 -500.38 448.74
Panel- 0.75(1.4D+1.7L+1.7W) 1459.78 -228.75 1311.49 -408.72 430.61
Column
Approximation 1960.58 -357.79 1967.18 -485.19 467.70
Strip
Interior 1.4D+1.7L 495.22 -364.39 483.67 -692.25 -68.68
Panel- 0.75(1.4D+1.7L+1.7W) 363.99 -273.05 330.13 -564.67 -44.41
Middle
Approximation 458.13 -437.00 475.29 -658.15 -90.44
Strip
Exterior 1.4D+1.7L 1345.18 -286.62 1329.19 -492.77 239.58
Panel- 0.75(1.4D+1.7L+1.7W) 1026.79 -215.10 880.90 -417.94 402.17
Column
Approximation 1369.44 -313.23 1370.76 -441.62 300.36
Strio
Exterior 1.4D+1.7L 230.27 -286.62 215.89 -603.23 -195.74
Panel- 0.75(1.4D+1.7L +1.7W) 159.33 241.56 124.07 -540.48 -117.14
Middle
Approximation 205.30 -361.75 221.80 -569.36 -171.30
Strip

Table 6.6 Bending Moments for interior strip and exterior strip for loading 1.

Interior Soan Exterior Span


Column Inl. face
Analysis Method Midspan Ext. Face Midspan of Ext.
Strip face
oflnl.
Location Momenl Column
Column (kip-ft)
(kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft)
lkin-ft)
Finite Element 2397.2 -669.6 2375.6 -1192.6 380.1
Interior
Strip Conventional 1578.4 1436.4 1533.4 -2205.0 343.3
Width 20' Approximate -794.8 2442.5 -1143.4 377.3
2418.7
Finite Element 1460.3 -429.9 1437.2 -794.4 141.7
Exterior
Strip- Conventional 1012.0 -1498.6 975.4 -2015.4 -59.2
Width 13' Approximate -494.1 1481.7 -726.3 214.7
1472.1

76
"

According to BNBC, maximum allowable differential settlement for foundation is


20 mrn. Maximum differential settlement for this example is 0.31 inch, which is well
below the allowable limit. The variation of deflection along lines 1-6 of Fig.6.5 is

shown in Fig. 6.9.

Flexural shearing stress is critical at the neck section. Fig. 6.10c shows the variation
of flexural shearing stress at interior neck section across the width for load cases 1
and 2 and capacity in flexure. Total capacity of the neck section across the width in
flexure is 786 kip whereas total flexural shear force for load I and load 2 are
709.49 and 507.10 kip respectively. From flexural point of view this model is able to

take flexural shear.

Punching shear in columns are tabulated in Table 6.7, which shows the punching
shear force at d/2 distance away from the column face and at the neck section around
the column. From Table 6.7, it has been observed that maximum punching shear is
1477 kip and greater thickness has been calculated from punching shear 1485 kip.
So, greater thickness is adequate. At the neck section around the column maximum
punching shear 1231 kip whereas the capacity is 1431 kip. So, smaller thickness at
neck section is adequate for punching shear.

This approximate method can be used for non-uniform mat foundation with column
spacing in a regular pattern.

77
120
--Loading 1
100 ____ Loading 2 Symmetry
line
___ Approximate
•••c
Gl
80

E= 60
~= •
Ole.
c ,-
40
'tl '"
.- 20
C
Gl
CD 0
-20
-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.7k Variation of bending moment, Mx along lines 17 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.

300
Symmetry
250 -- Loading 1
Line
--Loading 2
200 Approximation
..:
c
Gl
150

~ ~ 100

~ ,9- 50
.- '"
'tl
C
Gl
o
CD
-50

-100
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.8a Variation of bending Moment Mx along lines 8,16 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.
30
20 --Loading 1
__ Loading2
10
-6- Approximation
..; 0
c
Q)
E -10

~ ~-20
CIa.
.: :;;: -30
"C
~
5; -40
Symmetry
In
-50 line

-60
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.8b Variation of bending Moment M, along lines 9, 15 for loading 1, loading 2 and
approximation.

400
350 Symmetry
--Loading 1 Line
300 --Loading 2
..; 250
c -6- Approximation
Q)
200
E=
~=..•
CIa.
c .-
.-
,
150
100
50
"C
C
Q)
o
In -50
-100
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.8c Variation of bending moment M, along lines 11, 13 for loading 1, loading 2
and approximation.
60
Symmetry line
--Loading 1
40 __ Loading2
__ Approximation
20
,.;
c
GI 0
g=
:E ~ -20
CIa.
.5:;2
"C -40
c
GI
In -60

-80
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from end, ft

Fig 6.8d Variation of bending moment Mz along line 12 for Loading 1, Loading 2 and
approximation.

o
-Loading 1
-0.1
--Loading 2
-0.2
c
.~ -0.3
o
tl -0.4
GI
'Qj -0.5
o
-0.6

-0.7

-0.8
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.9a Variation of vertical deflection along line 1 for loading 1 and Loading 2 .
o
-0.1 -Loading 1
.5 -0.2 -Loading 2
c -0.3
o
~ -0.4
-0.5
';
C -0.6
-0.7
-0.8
o 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.9b Variation of vertical deflection along line 2 for loading 1 and Loading 2.

o
-Loading 1
C -0.1
-Loading 2
C -0.2

:eo
Ql
-0.3

'; -0.4

C -0.5

-0.6
o 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.9c Variation of vertical deflection along line 3 for loading 1 and Loading 2.

-0.1 -Loading 1
C
-0.2 -Loading 2
c
0 -0.3
:;:;
f,)
Ql -0.4
;;::
Ql -0.5
C
-0.6

-0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.9d Variation of vertical deflection along line 4 for loading 1 and Loading 2.

..,, '

."
0
-Loading 1
-0.1
-Loading 2
-0.2
.5
C -0.3
0
:;::
u
Gl
;;: -0.4
Gl
C
-0.5

-0.6

-0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.ge Variation of vertical deflection along line 5 for loading I and Loading 2 .

0
-Loading 1
-0.1
-Loading 2
-0.2
.5
C -0.3
0
:;::
u
Gl
;;: -0.4
Gl
c -0.5

-0.6

-0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.9f Variation of vertical deflection along line 6 for loading I and Loading 2 .
30
--Line
__ Line2 1
•...•....Line3
20 --Line 4
__ lineS
•••Ul --Line 6
10
"'".n
-
Ul
! 0
l/l
•..C'lI
Gl
.c -10
l/l

-20

-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.IOa Variation of Shear Stress S,y along lines 1-6 for loading 1.

30
-+- Line 1 __ Line 2 -6- Line 3
~ Line 4 --- Line 5 .....•...Line 6
20
•••
Ul

"'.n" 10

-
Ul
•..
Gl
0
l/l
•..C'lI
Gl
.c -10
l/l
-20

-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance from end, ft

Fig.6.IOb Variation of Shear Stress S,y along lines 1-6 for loading 2.
--.
35
--+-Load 1 Symmetry Line
30 __ Load 2
••••
Ul
~ 25
Ul

-
Ul 20
~
Ul 15
•••
I'll
Gl
.c 10
l/)
5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Distance fremend, ft

Fig. 6.1 Dc Variation of flexural shearing stress and capacity at the interior neck section.
Table 6.7 Column axial forces, Punching shear at d/2 distance from the column
face and at the neck section around the column ..

Load Case 1 Load Case 2

Col- Axial Punching Punching Axial Punching Punching


-umn load shear at shear at load shear at shear at
No. d/2 neck d/2 neck
distance section distance section
kin kin kin kip kin kip
Cl 604 494.57 252.15 332 266.89 120.50

C2 969 877.68 626.69 726 653.29 473.33

C3 969 877.65 626.63 726 652.37 465.68

C4 604 493.96 247.74 581 480.87 257.33

C5 969 872.02 626.29 597 534.60 376.47

C6 1562.9 1476.26 1230.50 1171 1106.11 922.26

C7 1562.9 1476.27 1230.66 1172 1106.98 922.50

C8 969 871.92 626.10 855 771.92 561.66

6.8 ECONOMY OF PROPOSED MAT WITH VARiABLE THICKNESS

Cost estimate for the above example is done with mat of constant thickness and mat
with variable thickness. Economic evaluation is shown in Table 6.8.

Thickened part of the mat at the upper portion restricts the use of top surface of mat
for commercial purpose like parking, store house etc. This problem can be handled

in two ways.

(i) For this example, only 15% area of the total mat is thickened under the
column. Structural cost of non-uniform mat is Tk. 18,93,500. Cost
comparison of mat with variable thickness and uniform mat is done in
Table 6.8. It is seen that, efficiency of the flat area is reduced by 15%
with saving in structural cost about 39%.
78
,
F
~-,
,

Table 6.8 Economic evaluation of mat with variable thickness against mat with

constant thickness.

Extra
Filler finishing
Concrete Reinf. Total Savings
Mat Foundation Mats. with (%)
cft ton Cost
cft concr.
Tk
cft
Mat with constant
thickness 12214 20 ------- ------~- 30,87,500 0%
Mat with variable
thickness
Without filler 7607 11 ------- ------- 18,93,500 39%
Mat with variable
thickness
(a) With brick fill and 4"
slab on the full top surface
(Fig 6.11 b).
7607 11 4607 1530 23,29,600 25%
(b) With brick fill and 4"
slab on the top surface of
reduced thickness (Fig
6.lIc). 7607 II 3234 1372 22,61,500 27%
Mat with variable
thickness
(a) With sand fill and 6"
slab on the full top surface
7607 II 4607 2295 22,65,400 25%
(Fig 6.11 b).

(b) With sand fill and 6"


slab on the top surface of
reduced thickness (Fig
6.llc). 7607 11 2548 2058 22,17,500 27%

(ii) Usually basement floor is used for storage and car parking. Non-uniform
top surface is not a problem for a store house. It restricts the use of
basement floor as car parking. Non-uniform top surface can be filled with
low cost filler material like sand, bricks and whole or partially top
surface can be finished with 4" to 6" thick concrete to provide a useful
flat surface (Fig. 6.11). Cost comparison reveals that about 25%

79
3'-10. I 20' 20' 20' 3'-10.

I
@.

la'

~
0
G G 0

20'

o o o o

@@
Fig. 6.110.

t
Snnd Filler 6' Concrete

='7.' 0 D.
.~.=:..:...'.i ::< :.>:: <: ~.:., .:
~ . ./- ... :7 <tj"'.
Uf'~~.:.
;"~":':~"'~I:
Reinforced Concrete.
3'-10' 20' 10' 10' 20'

Fig. 6.1110

Brick Filler 4" Concrete

gF)~4:.-~~.-'~m:r:~:;f1,7~~r.P.':;?!,:~ ---Re-;nf'orced Concrete.


3;-lQ" 20' 10' 10' 20' J'-lQ"

Fig. 6.11c
Reinf'orced Concrete,

6fu;-----': ',:: " .... :. ~~ .....'.:'.,~' .08'-----------':.'. > ;'/':"~

20' 10' la' 20' ;r-1p.

Fig. 6.110

Fig. 6.11 Use of filler material to provide a flat surface for mat foundation of
variable thickness.
economy can be achieved with variable mat foundation over mat having

constant thickness.

For economic evaluation assumed unit cost of materials are given in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9 Unit cost of construction material

Cost
Item Unit
Tk/unit
Reinforced cement
cft 220
concrete (l :I. 5:3)
Reinforcement Ton 20,000
Concrete for extra
cft ISO
finishinl! (1: 3:6)
Brick fill with mortar 50
cft
(1:4)
Sand filler cft 6

6.8 REMARKS

The proposed improved method of modeling and analysis with finite element
method and approximate method has been verified with nine number of mats
analysed for different length to width span ratio for different modulus of subgrade

reaction.

In this study, reshaping scheme of mat foundation with variable thickness proposed
by Morshed and Sutradhar has been improved in different ways,

(i) Previous method proposed extra thickness is to be provided below the slab.
In present method, extra thickness is to be provided above the slab.

(ii) Previous method proposed that smaller thickness is to be taken 2/3rd of


greater thickness. In the new proposed method, smaller thickness is to be taken
60% of greater thickness.

80
(iii) The greater thickness is to be provided for a distance equal to the effective
depth corresponding to greater thickness itself. In the new approach, width of
greater thickness, Ls shall be at least 0.4 times the span length in that direction.

(iv) The new approach proposed an approximate analysis method for mat with
variable thickness and having column arrangements in a regular grid.

Case studies reveal that

• Differential settlement is increased but it is well below the allowable


limit. This will not pose any harm to foundation design.
• Shear stress consideration has shown that greater thickness should be
designed for punching shear and punching shear stress diminishes rapidly
away from the column face. Maintaining greater thickness up to de from
the column face is sufficient to encounter punching shear.
• Maintaining length of the thicken zone up to 0.40 times the span is
sufficient to take care of flexural shear.
• Maximum negative moment occurs at the midspan. Smaller thickness
0.60 tg is sufficient to resist the negative moment at midspan.

81
CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

7.1 GENERAL

Mat foundation is a relatively heavy and costly structure. Economy in mat has
been engineer's dream for many years. This was not possible for lack of
appropriate design method and guideline. Design of mat foundation is still a
cumbersome job to most engineers. Possibility of economy has been hinted by
several authors in the form of changing the configuration of mat geometry. In Fig
1.1 such configurations are shown. Since we have the most powerful Finite
Element tools in our hand, it is our privilege to discover economy in such
configurations. The specific objective of this study was to develop aids for
analysis and design of mat foundation with variable thickness. Findings regarding
the mat behavior under vertical loading conditions and variable thickness are
based on extensive analysis by finite element method.

An extensive literature review has also been done to identify the significant
parameters that influence the behavior of mat with variable thickness. Parametric
study on two significant parameters, modulus of sub grade reaction and smaller
thickness, has been done in this investigation. Each parameter has been widely
varied within the practical range. On the basis of this extensive study design
rationale proposed by Morshed and Sutradhar has been improved.

An improved guideline for modeling and analysing mat with variable thickness
using finite element method has been presented. Such type of mat foundation
offers a way of attaining substantial economy.

82
An approximate method of analysis of mat foundation with variable thickness has
finally been presented. This approximate method would enable the designer to
design mat with variable thickness with regular grids in most practicable cases,
with relative ease. When a complicated case arises one should go for finite

element solution.

7.2 FINDINGS FROM THE INVESTIGATION

From this study the actual behaviour of mat foundation with variable thickness
has become obvious. A mat of three bay frames has been analyzed by varying its
smaller thickness and modulus of subgrade reaction.

Parametric study on variation of smaller thickness shows that smaller thickness


can be reduced up to 54% of greater thickness. To be more conservative it is
maintained at 60% of greater thickness. Modulus of sub grade reaction affects the
distribution of moments to column strip and middle strip for mat with variable
thickness. Distribution of moments to column strip and middle strip is
significantly influenced by LIB ratio of the mat panel.

Complete analysis of nine mat foundations with five bay has been performed by
finite element package program ANSYS. Results obtained from these analysis

have also been summarized.

7.3 THE IMPROVED DESIGN APPROACH FOR MAT WITH


VARIABLE THICKNESS

Based on the investigation on nine mat foundations by varying LIB ratio and
modulus of subgrade reaction by finite element method a simple modeling
guideline for economic shaping of mat foundation has been proposed. This model

83
can be used for finite element analysis. A simple and straightforward way of
analysis and design has been presented in chapter 6.

Three sets of distribution coefficients have been proposed for different sub grade
modulus of reaction with variation of five different LIB ratio of mat panel. Using
the proposed distribution coefficients, a designer can find out the moments at the
critical sections of column strip and middle strip for interior panel and exterior
panel. This method is limited up to the range where vertical loads govern the
design and spacing of columns in a regular pattern. Specifically this method is
applicable upto fifteen storied building.

7.3.1 RECOMMENDATION FOR BANGLADESH NATIONAL

BUILDING CODE

Bangladesh National Building Code (1993) is a complete and comprehensive


building code covering all aspects of planning, design and construction of
buildings. These regulations, ordinances, rules and practices need updating,
rationalization and unification.

South-western part of Bangladesh has highly compressible soil up to great depth.


Cast-in-situ foundation is not reliable for this soil condition even for a six storied
residential building. Therefore, there is a need for low-cost foundation design for
buildings up to six storied residential buildings in that area with reliability and
simplicity.

Usually this type of structure is more likely to have column arrangements in a


regular grid pattern and uniform loading. Governing load case is the vertical load
i.e. dead load plus reduced live load. Mat foundation with variable thickness for
this situation is ideal one. Need for finite element solution may hinder the
applicability of this economic approach. Approximate method of analysis for mat

84

I.
design, as recommended here, will encourage the designers to go for this type of
solution. This will cause substantial reduction in cost for foundation design.

This approach for the design of mat with variable thickness may be adopted in
BNBC. Calculating the total settlement for a long period from consolidation test,
plinth level of the structure can be raised with a factor of safety. Additional
advantage is that one can use the top face of the mat foundation as basement floor,
storage. Underground parking is not a requirement in those areas.

7.4 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDY

The fields of future study are


• Approximate analysis of mat foundation with non-uniform spacing of

columns.
• Approximate method of analysis for load cases where lateral load is a
governing criteria.
• Approximate method of analysis for mat with constant thickness.
• Effect of shear wall on design of mat foundation.
• Effect of shear wall on edges of mat foundation.
• Modeling Guideline for mat with variable thickness with shear walls.
• Behavior of irregularly shaped mat, mat with punches, mat with
irregular column arrangements may be investigated.

85
REFERNECES

ACI Committee 436 (at present committee 336), (1966). "Suggested Design Procedure
for Combined Footing and Mats", ACI Journal Proceedings, 63(10),1041-1057.

Ahmad, S., Irons, B.M. and Zienkiewicz, a.c. (1970). "Analysis of Thick and Thin Shell
Structures by Curved Finite Elements", International Journal of Numerical Methods in

Engineering, 2, 419-451.

Ahmad, S. (1969). "Curved Finite Elements in the Analysis of Solid, Shell and Plate
Structures", Ph.D. Thesis, College of Swansea.

Arora, K.R., (1992). "Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering", 1st Ed., Standard
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.

Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), (1993). " Foundation", Art 3.9, pp. 6-69.

Bathe, KJ. (1976). "Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis", 1st Ed., Prentice

Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Bowels, J.E. (1988). "Foundation Analysis and Design", 4th Ed., McGraw Hill Book Co.,

New York.

Bowels, J.E. (1974). "Analytical and Computer Methods in Foundation Engineering", 1st
Ed., McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.

Bowels, J.E. (1986). "Mat Design", ACI Journal, 83(6), 1010-1017.

Broms C.E. (2000). "Elimination of flat plate punching failure Mode", ACI Structural

Journal, .97,94-101.

Chilton, D.S. and Wekezer, J.W. (1990). "Plates on Elastic Foundation", Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(11),3236-3241.

86
Das, B. M. (1983). "Advanced Soil Mechanics", 1st ed., Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, Washington.

Desalvo, GJ. and Swanson, J.A. (1994). " Ansys-user manual", Swanson analysis

system Inc., Houston, Pa.

Deryck, N. and Severn, R.N. (1960). "Stresses in Foundation Rafts", Proceedings, The
Institute of Civil Engineers (London), Vol. 20(2). 293-304.

Deryck, N:, and Severn, R.N. (1960). "Stresses in Foundation rafts ", Proceedings, The
Institution of Civil Engineers (London), 15(1), 35-48.

Gupta, A. and Patel, A.N.(1996). "Rational Analysis of Mat Foundations Using Finite
Element Technique", Proceedings, The International Seminar on Civil Engineering
Practice in the Twentyfirst Century, Roorkee, 1,149-159.

Grant, R. et. al. (1974). " Differential Settlement of Buildings", JGED, ASCE, 100(9),

973-991.

Hemsley, J.A. (1987). "Elastic Solutions for Axisymetrically Loaded Circular Raft with
Free or Clamped Edges Founded on Winkler Springs or a Half-space", Proceedings, The
Institute of Civil Engineers (London), 83(2), 61-90.

Hemsley, J.A. (1988). "Plane Elastostatic Flexure of an Infinite Plate on a Half Space",
Proceedings, The Institute of Civil Engineers (London), 85(2), 629-664.

Hetenyi, M. (1946). "Beams on Elastic foundation", I st Ed., University of Michigan


Press, En Arbor.

Horvath, J.S. (1983), "New Subgrade Model Applied to Mat Foundations", Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109(12),1567-1587.

87
Horvath, J.S. (1993). "Modulus of Subgrade reaction: New Perspective", Journal 0/
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109(12), 1591-1596.

Hossain, T.R. (1993). "Comparative Study of the Analysis Techniques of Mat


Foundation", M.Sc. Thesis, BUET, Dhaka.

Irons, B. and Ahmad, S. (1980). "Techniques of Finite Elements", 1st Ed., Ellis Horwood
Ltd., Chichester.

Korenov E. J. (1960). " Bearing capacity of footings in Pile driving", JSMFD, ASCE,
87(4),124-145.

Krishnamoorthy, C.S. (1987). "Finite Element Analysis: Theory and Programming", 1st
ed., Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.

Liou G. S. and Lai S.c. (1996). "Structural analysis model for mat foundation", Journal
o/Structural Engineering, ASCE, 122(9), 1114-1117.

Mician, R. (1985). "Discussion on a Simplified Method for Design of Mat on Elastic


Foundation (paper by Shukla, S.N.)", ACI Journal, 584-586.

Molla, M.A.S. (1995). "Finite Element Analysis of Footings and Mat foundations", M.Sc.
Thesis, BUET, Dhaka.

Morshed A.S.M. (1997). "A Design Rationale for Mat Foundation Based on Finite
Element Analysis", M.Sc. Thesis, BUET, Dhaka,

Nilson A.H. (1997). "Design of Concrete Structures", Twelfth Edition, McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York.

Research Engineers Incorporates (2000). STA.AD-Pro 2000, Release 2000, Yorba Linda,
USA, 1997-1999.

Scott, R.F. (1981). "Foundation Analysis", 1st Ed., Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.

88
Selvadurai, A.P.S. "Elastic Analysis of Soil Foundation Interaction", Developments in
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 17, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Shukla, S.N. (1984). "A Simplified Method for Design of Mats on Elastic Foundation" ,

ACI Journal, 81(5), 469-475.

Schleicher, F. (1968). "Kreisplatten aut Elastischer Unterlage", Julius Springer, Berlin.

Sutradhar A.(1999). "An Improved Design Rationale for Mat Foundation Based on Finite
Element Analysis", M.Sc. Thesis, BUET, Dhaka.

Steven e. Ball and James S. N. (1984). "Compute Analysis/Design of Large oflarge Mat
foundation", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE" 110(5).

Teng, W.e. (1999). "Foundation design", 13 th Ed., Prentice Hall of India Private

Limited, New Delhi.

Zimmermann A. (1958) " A method to estimate modulus of subgrade reaction", Soils and

foundations, Tokyo, Japan, 12(3),1-17.

89
APPENDIX A

SHELL93: 8 NODE STRUCTURAL SHELL ELEMENT

A.I BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SHELL93 ELEMENT

She1l93 is an eight node structural element of ANSYS library function. She1l93 is well
suited to model curved elements. Typical shell elements are shown in Fig A.\. The
element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, z
directions and rotations about the x, y, z axes. The deformed shapes are quadratic in both
in-plane directions. The element has bending effect, transverse shear deformation,
plasticity, stress stiffening, large deflection and large strain capabilities.

K.L,O

I 6
1'hangulsr Oplion
]

,}--'
Fig. A.I SHELL93: 8 node structural shell

A.I.I Geometric Definition of the Element:


The geometry, node locations and the co-ordinate system for this element are shown in
Fig. A.\. The element is defined by eight nodes, four thickness and the orthotropic

A-I

A'
I ..•••
" '"
y.

~
material properties. Mid-side nodes may not be removed from this element. A triangular
shaped element may be formed by defining the same node number for nodes K, L and O.
Orthotropic material directions correspond to the element coordinate directions.

The element x and y axis are in the plane ofthe element. The element may have variable
thickness. The thickness is assumed to vary smoothly over the area ofthe element, with
the thickness input at the corner nodes.

A.1.2 Loading of the Element

Pressures may be input as surface loads on the element faces. Positive pressures act into
the element. Edge pressures are input as force/unit length. Temperatures may be input as
element body loads at the comer.

E1emeJd CoQ"dinate SX(TOP)


System SX(M1D)
sX(M'l)

Fig. A.2 SHELL 93 stress output

A-2

,I
A.2 OUTPUT DATA

The solution output associated with the elements is in two forms: (a) nodal displacements
included in the overall nodal solution, and (b) additional element output is shown in table
A.l. Several items are illustrated in Fig. A.2. The element stress directions and force
resultants are parallel to the element coordinate system.

Table A.l She1l93 Element input and output definitions

Name Definition

EL Element number and name

NODES Nodes -I, J, K, L,M, N,O,P

MAT Material number

THICK Average thickness

S:INT Stress Intensity

S:EQY Equivalent stress

EPEL: X,Y,Z, XY, YZ, XZ Elastic Strains

S: 1,2,3 Principal Stresses

T(X, Y ,XY) In plane element X,Y, and XY forces

M (X, Y, XY) Element X, Y, and XY moments.

N (X, Y) Out-of-plane element X and Y shear


forces.

A.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

Zero area elements are not allowed. This occurs most often whenever the elements are
not numbered properly. Zero thickness elements or elements tapering down to zero
thickness at any comer are not allowed. The applied transverse thermal gradient is
assumed to vary linearly through the thickness. Shear deflections are included in this
element. The element may produce inaccurate stress under thermal loads for double
curved warped domains.

A-3

" v
APPENDIXB

COMBIN14: SPRING DAMPER ELEMENT

B.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

Combin 14 has longitudinal or torsional capability in one, two, or three dimensional


applications. The longitudinal spring-damper option is a uniaxial tension-compression
element with up to three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y
and z directions, no bending or torsion is considered. The torsional spring damper option
is a purely rotational element with three degrees of freedom at each node: rotations about
the x, y, and z axis. No bending or axial load is considered.

I
I I
I I
I I
I I
z I
II : ~ :
I I
I I I I
v : I I I
}-- --____ I
x ----------J -- --..1
NOIt .1'Iro-dimtruional elcmcI1I mUSIlit intbl: x-v plant

Fig. B.l COMBINl4 spring damper

The spring damper element has no mass. Masses can be added by using the appropriate
mass element. The spring or the damping capability may be removed from the element.

8-1
B.1.1 Geometric Definition ofthe Element

The geometry, node locations and the coordinate system for this element is shown in Fig.
B.I. The element is defined by two nodes, a spring constant and damping coefficient Cvl

and Cv2. The damping capability is not used for static and undamped modal analyses. The
longitudinal constant has units offorce/unit length.

The element has option for defining the element as a one dimensional element. With this
option the element operates in the nodal coordinate system.

B.2 OUTPUT DATA

The solution output associated with the element is in two forms: (a) nodal displacements
included in the overall nodal solution, and (b) additional element output is shown in table

B.l.

Table B.I COMBINl4 element input and output definitions.

Name Definitions

EL Element Number

NODES Nodes - I, J

CENT: X, Y,Z Center Location XC, YC, ZC

FORC or TORQ Spring Force or Moment

RATE Spring Constant

B.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

The length of the element must not be zero, since the node locations determine the spring
orientation. The longitudinal element stiffness of the spring acts along the length of the
spring. The element allows only a uniform stress in the spring. The element can be
modified to act along only one degree of freedom and no moment effects are included.

8-2
In this study the element has only one degree of freedom. This degree of freedom is
specified in the nodal coordinate system and is the same for both nodes.

8-3
APPENDIXC

MACRO USED FOR ANALYSIS

C.l GENERAL

Macro is a text file, which can be called from ANSYS command line. Commands are
written in this file. This is used for modeling, solution and viewing output of the
structure. This is one type of sub-progranuning. A macro file can invoke another macro
file. A set of macro files has been used for modeling, solution and post processing
purpose. Text files as macro files are given for prospective researchers.

Following six files are used to model a mat foundation of twelve storied building of five
bays with variable thickness, solution and for post processing purpose.

C.2 DESIGN DATA FOR THE MAT MODEL

A twelve storied building of five bay frame in each direction with span 26'.0" has been
studied. The building is symmetric in both directions. Therefore, only one-fourth of the
problem has been considered. The structure is assumed to have uniform live load 60 psf,
slab dead load 90 psf, distributed wall load 30 psf, floor finish 25 psf. An amount of 440
lb/ft is assumed for 5" wall along all beams. Modulus of subgrade reaction is taken 100
kcf.
With dead load factor 1.4 and live load factor 1.7, the considered load case is
1.4DL+1.7LL for the mat foundation (Fig. 5.1). Respective column loads are given in
Table 5.1. Model shape for mat foundation in an isometric view is given in Fig. C.1.

C.3 MODEL OF MAT FOUNDATION WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS.

File l: Param.txt
!***************************
!SETTING THE PARAMETERS

C.l
!***************************

!************************
!Generating the nodes
!************************
! a(i) is the spacing of nodes in X direction.

*dim,a,,80
*set,a(I), 1,1, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
*set,a(lI),I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,1
*set,a(21 ),1, I, I, I, I, I, I, 1,1, I
*set,a(31), I, 1,1,1, I, I, 1,1, I, I
*set,a( 41), I, I, 1,1,1, I, I, I, I, I
*set,a( 51), I, 1,1,1, 1,1, 1,1, I, I
*set,a(61), I, 1,1, I, I, I, 1,1, I, I
*set,a(71), 1,1,1,1,1, I, 1,1,1,1

! b(i) is the spacing of rows in Z direction.

*dim,b,,80
*set,b(I), I, I, I, I, I, I, 1,1, I, I
*set,b(II), I, I, 1,1, I, I, 1,1,1, I
*set,b(21), I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I
*set,b(31), I, I, 1,1,1, I, 1,1, I, I
*set,b( 41),1,1,1,1, I, I, 1,1, 1,1
*set,b(51),I, 1,1,1, 1,1,1, I, I, I
*set,b( 61), I, I, 1,1,1,1, I, I, I, I
*set,b(71), I, I, I, 1,1, I, I, I, I, I

! row I starting node in x-dir


*set,ndrlst, I
*set,xl,O
*set,yl,O
*set,zl,O

! row I ending node in x-dir


*set,ndrlend,71
*set,x2,70
*set,y2,0
*set,z2,0

! Total number of rows in z-dir


*set,totrow,71
!spacing of rows in Z-dir
*set,spzrow,I.00

C-2
!generating nodes (copying) in y-dir.
!number of copy in Y-dir
*set,nycopy,2
!spacing of rows in y-dir
*set,spyrow,-4

!Starting node of free end nodes of springs of row 1


*set,spmdst,ndr 1end *totrow+ 1

!Ending node of free end nodes of springs of row 1


*set,sprl nden,(ndr 1end*totrow+ndrl end)

!*******************************
!Defining the Material Properties
1*******************************
!material properties ex, Poisson's ratio for Shell Element
*set,ex 1,5.1ge5
*set,nuxyl,O.15

!Defining Element Type to be used


!she1l93,combin14 with keyopt2 (2) is used
!For one dimensional longitudinal spring damper keyopt(2)= 2

! setting element numbers


!Starting shell element of first row
*set,elrl st, 1

! End shell element of first row


*set,elrl end,(ndrl end-l )/2

!Last shell element, last shell element of last row


*set,elshlst,«ndrlend-I )/2)*«totrow-l )12)

!Number of repetitions in Z-dir of Spring rowl in X-dir


*set,spr 1rep,(totrow+ 1)/2

! setting first spring number for first row


*set,sprl ,elshlst+ I
!setting last spring number of first row
*set,sprl end,( elshlst+( ndr 1end+ 1)/2)

! setting spring number for first spring for last row


*set,sprlast,sprl +( spr 1rep-l )*( spr 1end-sprl + I)
! setting spring number for last spring for last row
*set,sprlaend,sprl end+(sprl rep-I )*(sprlend-sprl + I)

C-3
! number of springs in first X-row.
*set,sprxnum,sprl end-sprl + I

File 2: Realcon.txt

! Declaration of element real constants


!number of real constant sets for shell
*set,shset, I 0
!Defining VariOllS thickness
*set,al,3.5
*set,bl,2.00
*set,spring,400
!Shell thickness Setl
*set,thll,al
*set,thI2,al
*set,th13,al •
*set,th 14,a I
!Shell thickness Set2
*set,th2l,b 1
*set,th22,b 1
*set,th23,bl
*set,th24,b 1
!Shell thickness Set3
*set,th31,b I
*set,th32,b 1
*set,th33,al
*set,th34,b 1
!Shell thickness Set4
*set,th41,b 1
*set,th42,al
*set,th43,al
*set,th44,b I
!Shell thickness Set5
*set,th51,b 1
*set,th52,al
*set,th53,b 1
*set,th54,b 1
!Shell thickness Set6
*set,th61,b 1
*set,th62,b I
*set,th63,al
*set,th64,al
!Shell thickness Set7
*set,th71,bl
*set,th72,b 1

C-4
*set,th73,b 1
*set,th74,al
!Shell thickness SetS
*set,thSl,al
*set,thS2,b 1
*set,thS3,b 1
*set,thS4,al
!Shell thickness Set9
*set,th91,al
*set,th92,b 1
*set,th93,b 1
*set,th94,b 1
!Shell thickness Set! 0
*set,thl0l,al
*set,thl02,al
*set,thl 03,b 1
*set,thl04,bl
! spring constant sets for mat central, side, comer
!spring Constant set for central
*set,sprcon I ,spring
!spring Constant set for side
*set,sprcon2,spring/2
!spring Constant set for comer
*set,sprcon3,spring/4

!Real Constant Sets For Shells upto number of shell set.

r, 1,thll ,th 12,th 13,th 14


r,2,th21,th22,th23,th24
r,3,th31,th32,th33,th34
r,4,th41 ,th42,th43 ,th44
r,5,th51,th52,th53,th54
r,6,th61,th62,th63,th64
r,7,th71 ,th72,th73,th74
r,S,thSl,thS2,thS3,thS4
r,9 ,th91 ,th92,th93,th94
r, 1O,th10 I ,th 102,thl 03,th I04

! Spring Constant Set for springs after shell set

r,shset+ I ,sprcon 1
r,shset+ 2,sprcon2
r,shset+ 3,sprcon3

C-5

•..
,.,.. ,'~
,~
File 3 : Load.txt FITEM,2,4125 FITEM,2,4177

! This Page is Used for F,P5IX,FY,-448.25, F,P5IX,FY,-755,

applying Nodal Loads FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4


!f,node,fy, value, value2, FITEM,2,341 !Application of vertical

nend,ninc FITEM,2,343 load-rnx


FITEM,2,483 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4

!Application of vertical FITEM,2,485 FITEM,2,289

load-fy F,P5IX,FY,-448.25, FITEM,2,29I

FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,431

FITEM,2,289 FITEM,2,2161 FITEM,2,433

FITEM,2,29I FITEM,2,2163 F,P5IX,rnx,9.3,

FITEM,2,43I FITEM,2,2303 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,433 FITEM,2,2305 FITEM,2,2135

F,P5IX,FY,-269, F,P5IX,FY,-724, FITEM,2,213 7

FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,2277

FITEM,2,2135 FITEM,2,4007 FITEM,2,2279

FITEM,2,2137 FITEM,2,4009 F,P5IX,rnx,1.52,

FITEM,2,2277 FITEM,2,4149 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,2279 FITEM,2,4151 FITEM,2,315

F,P5IX,FY,-438.5, F,P5IX,FY,-739, FITEM,2,317

FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,457

FITEM,2,315 FITEM,2,2187 FITEM,2,459

FITEM,2,317 FITEM,2,2189 F,P5IX,rnx,14.92,

FITEM,2,457 FITEM,2,2329 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,459 FITEM,2,233I FITEM,2,398I

F,P5IX,FY,-438.5, F,P5IX,FY,-739, FITEM,2,3983

FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,4123

FITEM,2,398I FITEM,2,4033 FITEM,2,4125

FITEM,2,3983 FITEM,2,4035 F,P5IX,rnx,OA,

FITEM,2,4123 FITEM,2,4175 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4

C-6

,.I .
FITEM,2,34I !Application of vertical FITEM,2,485

FITEM,2,343 load-mz F,P5IX,mz,-O.I,

FITEM,2,483 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,485 FITEM,2,289 FITEM,2,2161

F,P5IX,rnx,15, FITEM,2,291 FITEM,2,2163

FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,431 FITEM,2,2303

FITEM,2,2161 FITEM,2,433 FITEM,2,2305

FITEM,2,2163 F,P51X,mz,-9.3, F,P51X,rnz,-2.5,

FITEM,2,2303 FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,2305 FITEM,2,2135 FITEM,2,4007

F,P5IX,rnx,2.5, FITEM,2,2137 FITEM,2,4009

FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,2277 FITEM,2,4149

FITEM,2,4007 FITEM,2,2279 FITEM,2,415I

FITEM,2,4009 F,P51X,rnz,-14.9, F,P51X,rnz,-2.66,

FITEM,2,4149 FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,4151 FITEM,2,315 FITEM,2,2187

F,P51X,rnx,O.7, FITEM,2,317 FITEM,2,2189

FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,457 FITEM,2,2329

FITEM,2,2187 FITEM,2,459 FITEM,2,2331

FITEM,2,2189 F,P5IX,rnz,-1.5, F,P5IX,rnz,-O.71,

FITEM,2,2329 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4 FLST,2,4, I ,ORDE,4

FITEM,2,233I FITEM,2,398I FITEM,2,4033

F,P5IX,rnx,2.56, FITEM,2,3983 FITEM,2,4035

FLST,2,4,I,ORDE,4 FITEM,2,4123 FITEM,2,4175

FITEM,2,4033 FITEM,2,4125 FITEM,2,4177

FITEM,2,4035 F,P5IX,rnz,-15, F,P5IX,mz,-O.7,

FITEM,2,4175 FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,4
FITEM,2,4177 FITEM,2,341
F,P5IX,rnx,O.7, FITEM,2,343
FITEM,2,483

C-7
File 4: Model.txt

!Entering into Pre-Processor mode

/prep7
/TITLE, MAT FOUNDATION OF VARIBLE THICKNESS
! Calling input parameters
*use,param.txt
!pnum,lab,key ( 0 : off, 1 : on)
/pnum,node,O

!Generating nodes in X-direction


i=l
*do,ndx,ndrl st,ndr 1end, 1
n,ndx,x l,y l,z 1
xl=xl+a(i)
i=i+ I
*enddo

!fill,ndr I st,ndrl end


!ngen,itime,inc,node I ,node2,ninc,dx,dy,dz,space

!Generating nodes Z direction copying row I


i2=0
i=1
*do,ndz,2,totrow, I
spzrow=b(i)
ngen,2,ndr I end,ndr Ist+i2 *ndr I end,ndr I end+i2*ndr Iend, I ,0,0,spzrow
i2=i2+1
i=i+ 1
*enddo
!copying nodes in X-Z plane to another X-Y plane
ngen,nycopy,ndr I end*totrow,ndr 1st,ndr 1end*totrow, I ,0,spyrow,0
/units,si

!Setting material properties for Shell elements


mp,ex, I ,ex I
mp,nuxy, I ,nuxy I

! Defining element type


et,1,she1l93
et,2,combin 14,0,2

!Calling real constants for elements


*use,realcon.txt

C-8
/pnum,elem,O !(O: off, 1 : on)
!Generation of structural shell elements
type,l
mat,l
real, 1
en,elr 1st,2 *mlrl end+ 1,ndrl st,ndrl st+2,2*ndrl end+ 3,ndr 1end+ l,ndrl st+ 1,ndr 1end+ 3,2*n
drlend+2
!egen,itime,ninc,iell ,ieI2,ieinc, tinc,rinc,cinc
egen,(ndr 1end-l )/2,2,elrl st,elr 1st
egen,(totrow-l )/2,2*ndrl end,elrl st,elrl end

!Generation of spring elements


type,2
real,shset+ 1
en,sprl,ndrl st,spmdst
egen,(ndr 1end+ 1)/2,2,spr 1,sprl
egen,spr 1rep,2 *ndr 1end,spr l,spr I end

/eshape,l
! Modification of uniform mat to non uniform mat foundation.
*use,emod.txt

! Setting spring constants for all springs


*use,emodsp.txt

! Defining support condition and symmetry condition.


*use,support. txt

! Calling loads on the model.


*use,load. txt

File 5 : Support.txt
! Defining support condition
*do,i,O,totrow-I,2
d,sprndst+i *ndr 1end,all ••,spr Inden+i *ndr Iend,2
*enddo

!Defining symmetry condition


d,ndr I st+( totrow-l )*ndr 1end,rotx",ndr I end*totrow,2
d,ndrl st+(totrow-l )*ndrl end,uz",ndrl end*totrow,2

d,ndrl end,rotz",ndr 1end *totrow,2*ndrl end.


d,ndr Iend,ux",ndr 1end *totrow,2 *ndr 1end

C.9
File 6: emod.txt

! This page will be used to convert the shell real constants


! This page will be used to convert the mat foundation with constant thickness to mat
!foundation with variable thickness.
FLST,Z,Z7,Z,ORDE,18
FITEM,Z,14Z
FITEM,Z,-144
FITEM,Z,155
FITEM,Z,-157
FITEM,Z,168
FITEM,Z,-170
FITEM,Z,597
FITEM,Z,-599
FITEM,Z,610
FITEM,Z,-6IZ
FITEM,Z,6Z3
FITEM,Z,-6Z5
FITEM,Z,105Z
FITEM,Z,-1054
FITEM,Z, 1065
FITEM,Z,-1067
FITEM,Z, 1078
FITEM,Z,-1080
EMODIF,P5IX,REAL,4,

File 6 :Emodsp.txt

! This page will be used to convert the spring real constants

*do,spmum,sprl + I,sprlend-I, 1
emodif,spmum,real,IZ
*enddo
*do,spmum,sprlast+ 1,sprlaend-I, 1
emodif,spmum,real,IZ
*enddo
*do,spmum,spr 1+sprxnum,sprlast -sprxnum,sprxnum
emodif,spmum,real,IZ
*enddo
*do,spmum,spr 1end+sprxnum,sprlaend-sprxnum,sprxnum
emodif,spmum,real,IZ
*enddo
emodif,spr 1,real, 13
emodif,spr 1end,real, 13

C-IO
emodif,sprlast,real,13
emodif,sprlaend,real,13

C.4 SOLUTION OF THE MODEL

File 1 : Solo.txt
/solu
/stat,solu
Solve

C.S POST PROCESSING OF THE RESULTS

Post processing of the results is done by graphical editor.

C-li

"
~~ - NSYS GralJhics III!I
1 J\NSYS
y

~.
6 Z )«
r<tX':x
A ~ ~
<>< x:
AX" 1(:
>< x
"3< <>< :%.':
.? Yo X
r#-
I,~
'I' N.
x: ./'
><: ><
'>t''S.

I!,, .1',( >< 0«


'V
5: Y-

I'I', "'-"" ':x


'I .
.~ ' .'

MAT FOU!IDATIOH OF VARIABLE THICKNESS

Fig. C.l Structural model of mat foundation with variable thickness with SHELL93
and COMBIN14 elements for analysis.
APPENDIXD

DESIGN DATA: INPUT AND OUTPUT

D.I INTODUCTION

In this study, three mat foundations for different length to width ratio and for three
different modulus of subgrade reaction has been studied. A total number of nine mat
foundations have been analysed and their results have been summarized in chapter 5 in
Table 5.5 to Table 5.7. LIB ratio of mat foundation has been varied in the range of 0.615
to 1.625, which covers the most practical ranges. Modulus of subgrade reaction has been
varied from 50 kcfto 200 kcf, which covers soft to hard soils.

D.2 SUPERSTRUCTURE AND IT'S LOADING

The super structure is a twelve storied building with five bays in each direction. Only
gravity loading i.e. live load and dead load have been considered. Each structure is
assumed to have uniform loading of live load 60 psf, slab dead load 90 psf, distributed
wall load 30 psf and floor finish 25 psf. An amount of 440 lb/ft is assumed for 5" wall
along all beams.

With dead load factor 1.4 and live load factor 1.7 the considered load case IS

1.4DL+1.7LL for the mat foundation.

The mat foundation is symmetric in both directions considering its geometry, loading and
support conditions. As the structure is symmetric in both directions, only one fourth of
the mat foundation has been considered. Boundary conditions at the symmetry line have
been so selected at the symmetry line to include the effect of total structure.
Actually mat of three panel length to width ratio has been analysed but results of five LIB
ratio has been summarized. For example, a mat having interior panel of 26' x 16' provide
results for LIB ratio of 1.625 and 0.615. When the analysis results are summarized in the
longer direction considering the span 26' and width 16', LIB ratio is 1.625. Again, when
the results are summarized in the shorter direction, the span is 16' and width is 26', then
LIB ratio is 0.615. Column loads for three different panel length to width ratio has been
presented in Table D.1.

Table D.I Column axial Forces (Fx) and bending moments (Mx & My)for different
length to width ratio.
Length to Width Ratio of Panel
Col. 1.0 1..3 1.625
Title Fx Mx My Fx Mx My Fx Mx My
(kip) (k-in) (k-in) (kip) (k-in) (k-in) (kip) (k-in) (k-in)
CI 1075 445 -445 941 153 -579 838 114 -439
C2 1754 73 -716 1424 59 -972 1172 57 -807
C3 1793 20 -720 1479 12 -979 1132 12 -816
C4 1754 716 -73 1544 197 -73 1370 157 -64
C5 2896 120 -120 2365 98 -115 1940 96 -95
C6 2957 33 -128 2456 18 -119 2040 19 -99
C7 1793 720 -20 1574 199 -24 1396 158 -21
C8 2960 123 -34 2406 100 -40 1972 97 -33
C9 3022 34 -34 2500 19 -40 2077 20 -34
Total
20004 16689 13937
Load
TableD.2 Mat area, panel dimensions, total loading and uniform loading of the
panel for alb ratio.

Panel Dimensions Equivalent Avg.


Mat Panel Total Mat Total Column
Length to Length Width Soil Pressure
Area Loads (kip)
Width Ratio. (ft) (ft) (kst)
1.0 70' X 70' 26' 26' 20,004 4.082

1.3 70' X 53' 26' 20' 16,689 40491

1.625 70' X 43' 26' 16' 13,937 4.624

D.3 GEOMETRY OF MAT FOUNDATIONS

Total plan area of mat, panel dimensions, total column loads and equivalent average soil
pressure are shown in Table D.2 for different length to width ratio of mat panel. Greater
thickness and smaller thickness for mat foundations are given in Table D.3

Table D.3 Selected geometry of mat foundation for different mats.

Length to Greater Smaller


Width Ratio Thickness (ft) Thickness (ft)

1.00 3.50 2.00

1.3 3.50 2.00


1.625 3.25 1.875

004 OUTPUT OF MAT FOUNDATIONS

Only results of mat foundation for LIB ratio equal to 1.0 and for modulus of subgrade
reaction 100 kcf have been presented in Chapter 5. Variation of deflections, bending
moments and shear stress along lines I to 17 (shown in Fig. 5.1) are presented in Fig. D.I
to Fig. DA8. Descriptions of Fig. D.I to Fig. DA8 are shown in Table DA.
Table D.4 Description of figures presented in Appendix D.

Modulus of Subgrade Panel Length to


Figure Nos.
Reaction (kef) Width Ratio
Fig. D.I to Fig. D.6 50 1.0
Fig. D.7 to Fig. D.12 50 1.30

Fig. D.13 to Fig. D.18 50 1.625

Fig. D.19 to Fig. D.24 100 1.30

Fig. D.25 to Fig. D.30 100 1.625

Fig. D.31 to Fig. D.36 200 1.00

Fig. D.37 to Fig. D.42 200 1.30

Fig. D.43 to Fig. D.48 200 1.625


-0.4
__ Line 2
~Unet
-6-Une3 ---'Line4
___ Line 5
-0.6

.5 -0.8
C
0
~ -1
Q)

a;0
-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

-0.4
__ Line 7
~Line6
___ Line 9
-6--line6
-0.6

.5 -0.8
C
0
:;:: -1
CJ
Q)
;;:
Q)
0 -1.2

-1.4

-1.6
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b )
Fig. D.1 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.0 and K=50 kcf

,•
"
500
~ __ Line 1
CL 400
:ii --Line 2
.; 300
c
Gl
E 200
0
:E 100
'"
.!:
•••~
0
-100
III
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

700
~ 600 __ Line 4
CL
:ii 500
.; --Line 5
c 400
Gl
E 300
0
:E 200
c 100
Cl

:;; 0
c
Gl -100
III
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(b )

800
~ 700
CL
:ii 600 __ Line 7
.; 500
c
Gl 400 --Line 8
E
0 300
:E 200
'"
c 100
:;; 0
c
Gl -100
III
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e)

Fig. D.2 Varialion of bending momenl, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7,8 for panel US ratio 1.0and K=50 kef.
40
~ 20
:;;; 0
t -20
E -40
~ -60
g' -80
'6 -100
:; -120
III -140

o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

80
~ 60
~ 40 I--Line61
'if20
'" 0
E -20
~ -40
Cl -60
c -80
=g -100
~ -120
-140
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e )

100
~
c.
:ii 50 I--Line 91
-'c
'"
E 0
o
:lE -50
Cl
c
'6
c -100
'"
.111
-150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(f )

Fig. D.2 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K=50 kef.

/' .
\

\ /
2.00
I-Line 10 I
~ 150
Q.
:;;:
.; 100
c
••E 50
0
==01 0
C
;:;
c -50
••
III
-100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a)

700
;::
4i! 600 __ Line 12
Q.
:;;: 500 --Line 13
.;
:Ii 400
E
~ 300
g> 200
;:;
:Ii 100
III
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b)

700
__ Line 15
~ 600
Q.
:;;: 500 --Line 16
.;
:Ii 400
E
~ 300
g> 200
;:;
:Ii 100
III
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(c)
Fig. D.3 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel LIB ratio 1.0 and K=50 kef.

.\
-80

.i
-90
-100
I--Line 111
J~:~~~ 130
'" 0.-
.!: :;; -140
] -150
'"
III -160
-170
.180
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(d)

-50
-55 I--Line 141
i -60
'"
E -65
~ ~-70
'" 0.-75
.-]<:: .-""
-80
~ -85
-90
-95
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(e )

-50
-55 I--Line 171
.; -60
<::
E -65
~ ~ -70
'" 0. -75
.=:;; -80
] -85
'"
III -90
-95
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(f )
Fig. 0.3 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(I) Line 17 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K=50kef.
200

J 150
c
Gl
~;t::100
:;; ~ 50
~.g.
.5.:11:
-g 0
Gl
III -50

-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

700
'E 600
~ 500
~ ~ 400
CI Q. 300
.5 ~
"c 200
8l 100
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

700
__ Line 7
600
~. 500 --Line 8

~;:: 400
:;; ~ 300
CIa.
c .-
'5"'" 200
c
8l 100
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(c )

Fig. D.4 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel UB ratio 1.0 and K=50 kef.
-70
-80
i -90 I-Line31
••E .-100
0=
:;; i!-110
g> .e-120
...
.-
.•• -130
c
~ -140
-150
-160
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

-40
..: -50
c
••E -60
0=
:;; ~ -70
0lQ.
c .-
'5 .•• -80
c
~ -90
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

-40

..: -50
c
••
E -60
0=
:;; ~ -70
0lQ.
c .-
'5 .•• -80
c
••
lD -90

-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. 0.4 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(I) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K=50 kcf.
500
I-Line 10 I
400
'IfCD 300
E
~ ~ 200
g> ~ 100
=g 0
CD
III -100

-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a)

700
600
~ 500
E II:: 400
~=Cl Q.
300
200
c-
;; .•• 100
:Ii 0
III -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from end, ft

(b)

700
600
'E 500
CD 400
~ ~ 300
Cl Q. 200
.= :;;:
-g
100
0
8l -100
-200
-300
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(c)
Fig. 0.5 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ralio 1.0 and K=50 kef.
___ LINE 1 __ LINE2
-'-L1NE3
40 __ LINE4 __ LINE5

30

-••
20

••••• 10

!:••
til
0
~
••••
.t:: -10
til

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

1---L1NE 6 __ LINE7 -'-L1NE 8 __ LINE 91


40

30

20

Ui 10
•••
••••
!:
til
0
:;
••
.t::
til
-10

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(b)

Fig. D.6 Variation of Shearing stress. S,y along (a) lines 1-5. (b) lines 6-9
for panel UB ratio 1.0 and K=50 kef.

.f
-0.4 ___ Line 2
-""'Une 1
••.••.••• Line 3 ""'-'UI'I8 4
-0.6 ~Line5

C -0.8
C
0
~ -1
Gl
;;:
Gl
c -1.2

-1.4

-1.6
o 4 8 12 1620242832364044485256606468
Distance from end, ft

(a )

-0.4
-""'Une 6 Una 7

••.••.••• Line 8 Une 9


-0.6

.S: -0.8
c
0
:;:: -1
u
Gl
;;:
Gl
c -1.2

-1.4

-1.6
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b )
Fig. 0.7 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kcf.
ll;: 100
•••
:;;: 50 I--Line3 1

i
~ 0
o
::;; -50
Cl
c
'6 -100
c
&l -150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

100
ll;:
~ 50
i 0
"E
~ -50
g' -100
'6
c -150
~
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e)

100
ll;:
.Eo 50
""
c" a
"g -50
::;;
g' -100
'6
; -150
III
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

( f)

Fig. 0.8 Variation of bending moment, Mx along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.
160
~ 140 I--Line 10 I

~ ~~~
i 80
CD 60
8 40
:E 20
'"
c
=g
0
-20
~ -40
-60
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(a )

(c )
Fig. 0.9 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.

"
-80
-90
I--Line 111
'i -100

i~::~~
'" 0.-
130
.5 :;;;-140
-g -150
••
lD -160
-170
-180
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(d)

-50
I--Line 141
-60
'i
••8 = -70
::;; ~ -80
"''''
c .-
-g-"" -90
••
lD -100

-110
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e )

-50

~
-60 I--Line 171
c
••E= -70

~g».S-= -80
-90
.- ""
'tl
C -100
••
lD
-110

-120
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(f )
Fig. 0.9 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(f) Line 17 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.
200
.; 150
.,
e
~ ;: 100
~ ~ 50
",e.
e:;;:
'6 0
.,
e
al -50
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a )

500
.;
.,
e 400
E;: 300
~=
",e.200
.-e ..•
.-
100
"ale., o
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

600
--+-Line 7
500
--Line 8
~ 400
E
~ ~ 300
g> .9- 200
.- ..•
";
al
100
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e)

Fig. D.10 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4,5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.
.70
.80
i
'" .90
E
~ ~.100
g' .9-.110
--"
."
; .120
III .130
.140
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d )

.20
.,;
;
.25
-30
1-- Mx-L61
E .35
~ ~-40
g' .9-45
is -".50
; .55
III .60
.65
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

.20

i .25 I--Line 91
'" .30
~ =-35
~ ~-40
CIa.

.".= :;<'45
; .50
III .55

.60
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. D.10 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.
350

.;
300
250
I--Line 10 I
c
•• 200
E4= 150
0=
==, 100
C):e- 50
.5 ~ 0
"C
c -50
••
III -100
-150
-200
0 10 20 30 40 50

Distance from end, fl

(a )

600
__ Line 12
.; 500
c --Line 13
•• 400
g 4= 300
==ClIa.
~ 200
.!:
"C
:;;: 100
C
0
••
III
-100
-200
0 10 20 30 40 50

Distance from end, fl

(b)

600
.;
500
c
••g 4= 400
300
==ClIa.
~ 200
.!:
"C
:;;: 100
C
0
••
III
-100
-200
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, fl

(e)
Fig. 0.11 Variation of bending mo,!,ent, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.
___ LINE2
-+-L1NE 1 -o-L1NE 3
40 ___ LINE4 ___ LINE5

30

20

~ 10
,,;
••
!~ 0

••
~
•• .10
'" -20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a )

1-+-L1NE 6 LINE7 -o-LINE 8 LINE 91


40

30

20

-
••••,,;• 10

g•• 0
'"~
••
"
~ -10
'"
-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(b)

Fig. 0.12 Variation of Shearing stress, S,y along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6.9
for panel UB ratio 1.30 and K=50 kef.
-0.4
~Line 1 ~Line 2
--6-Une 3 .-line 4
-0.6 """-"Une 5

-0.8
.5
c
o -1
~
Ql -1.2
';
c -1.4

-1.6

-1.8
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

-0.4
--+-Line 6 line 7
--6-Line 8 Line 9
-0.6

c -0.8
C
o
ti
Ql
-1
';
c -1.2

-1.4

-1.6
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b)
Fig. D.13 Variation of defleet ion along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=50 kef.
700
=.
Q.
600 -+-Line 1
:iii 500 --Line 2
.,
,.;'
c
E
400
300
0 200
:;;
100
Ol
c 0
.,
:;;
c
CD
-100
-200
-300
Distance from End, ft

(a)

800
700
=.
Q. 600 -+-Line4
:iii 500
.,
,.;'
C

E
400
300
--Line 5

0
:;; 200
Ol 100
c
:;;
.,
c
CD
0
-100
-200
-300
Distance from End, ft

(b)

800
=.
Q.
700
:iii 600
.,
,.;'
c
E
500
400
-+-Line
--Line
7
8
0 300
:;; 200
Ol
c 100
.,
:;;
c
CD
0
-100
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(c )

Fig. 0.14 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=50 kef.
100
~
Q.
:;;; 50 I--Line3[

.,E
.;
<: 0

0 -50
::E
g> -100

.,
:;;
<: -150
III
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

150
~
Q. 100 I--Line61
:;:
.,E
.;
<:
50
0
0
::E -50
Cl
.!: -100
"
~ -150
III
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e )

150
~
Q. 100
:;: I--Line91
.,E
.;
<:
50
0
0
::E -50
Cl
<: -100
.,
:;;
<: -150
III
-200
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(f )

Fig. D.14 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel UB ratio 1.625 and K=50 kef.
160
~ 140 I-Line 10 I
0. 120
:;; 100
i 80
••E 60
o
::l; 40
g' 20
;:; 0
<:
:l -20
-40
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(a )

800
=
4::
700 __ Line 12
~ 600 --Line 13
i 500
••E 400
o
::l; 300
Ol
.E 200
."
; 100
III 0

o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(b)

800

=.E-
4::
700
600
__

--Line
Line 15

16
-"
i 500
••E 400
o
::l; 300
Ol
.5 200
."
; 100
III
o
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(c )
Fig. D.15 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=50 kcf.
-120
-130 [--Line 111
.;
c -140
••
~ ~ -150
• -160
ell:\,
,g :>: -170
c
••
lD
-180
-190
-200
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(d)

-70
I--Line 141
.; -80
c
•• -90
g=
:; ~-100
.-c-.><
-110
"c••
lD
-120

-130
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(e)

-80
-90 I--Line 171

'E
••
E -100
0=
:; l-110
c .><
.-
.-
-120
"c••
lD
-130
-140
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(I)
Fig. 0.15 Variation 01 bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(I) Line 17 lor panel US ratio 1.625 and K=50 kel.
160
140
i 120
•• 100
E = 80
~ ij! 60
••• .e- 40
..,
.E ..•• 20
; 0
III -20
-40
-60
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

400
.:
<: 300
••E=
200
~ij!
"'Q.
.- 100
..,<:-...•
<: 0
••
III
-100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

500
__ Line 7
400
.: --Line 8
<:
••E= 300

~= ,
_ ...•
"'Q.
200

..,<:<: .- 100
0
••
III
-100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(c )

Fig. 0.16 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(c) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=50kef.
-70

-80
i
••~ = -90
:lE=--100
"' ...
c .-
- '"
."c -110
••
III -120

-130
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

-20
.; -25 1 __ Mx-L61
i -30
~ =-35
:lE=--40
...
.E"' :><-45
."
i-50
III -55
-80
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e)

-10

.; -15
c
••
E -20
0=
:lE=--25
"'
c- ...
'6 "'-30
c
••
III -35

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. 0.16 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel LIB ratio 1.625 and K=50 kef.
300
250 I--Line 10 I
i 200
~ ;:: 150
~ i! 100
g».9- 50
.- ""
'C
C
0
~ -50
-100
-150
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(a)

500
__ Line 12
.; 400 __ Line 13
c
~ 300
~ ~ 200
g'.9-100
-""
-g 0
••
al -100
-200
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(b)

500
400

"
~
~ ~ 200
300

g'.9- 100
-""
-g 0
••
al -100
-200
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(c)
Fig. D.17 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=50 kef.
••
__ LINE 1 ___ LINE 2
-.-L1NE3
___ LINE 4 ___ LINE 5
40

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, It

(a )

1 __ LINE 6 --- LINE 7 -.- LINE 8 --- LINE 91


40

30

20

-
•••'"
<Ii
10

'~
" 0
in~
••••
.<:: -10
III

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, tt

(b)

Fig. D .18 Variation of Shearing stress, S"Yalong (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel LIB ratio 1.625 and K=50 kef.

\"
-0.2
••••.•••• Une 1 .....- Line 2

-0.3 --.\-Wne 3
__ Wne5
~Une 4

-0.4
c
.-.
c -05
.
o
~ -0.6
Gl
~ -0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

-0.2
••••.••Une
6 _Line 7

-0.3 -6--Llne 8 --*-Line 9

-0.4
.5
C
o -0.5
~
Gl -0.6
4i
o
-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

. (b)
Fig. D.19 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel UB ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
600
i 500 -+-Line 1
•• 400 --Line 2
i., 300
8 200
::E 100
ell
,g 0
5i
lD
-100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

700
~Co 600
-+-Line 4
•• 500
.: --Line 5
.,
<: 400
E 300
~ 200
ell 100
<:
'5 0
<:
~ -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(b)

700
~Co 600
•• 500
-+-Line 7
.,
i 400
E 300
--Line 8

~ 200
g' 100
:g 0
~ -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(c)

Fig. 0.20 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(c) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=100kef.
60
il;=
40
•••
:;;: 20
I--Line31
.;
c 0
••
E -20
0
::E -40
-60
'"
c
'6 -80
c
••
III
-100
-120
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

100
il;=
•••
:;;: 50 I--Line61
.;
c
••E 0
0
::E -50
'"
c
'6 -100
c
••
III
-150
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e )

100
il;=
•••
:;: 50 I--Line91
.;
c
••E 0
0
::E -50
.!:'"
"'0
c -100
••
III
-150
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. 0.20 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel UB ralio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
200
;:: I-Line 10 I
~ 150
••i 100
~
o
::E 50
Cl
c
=g 0
Gl
ID
-50
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(a )

700
;::
~ 600 -+-Line 12
Q.
•• 500 --Line 13
..:
~ 400
E
::Eo 300
g> 200
'6
c 100
Gl
ID
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(b)

700

~ 600 -+-Line 15
Q.
:;;: 500 --Line 16
..:
; 400
E
::Eo 300
g> 200
'6
c 100
Gl
ID
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(c )
Fig. D.21 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
-80
.90 I-Line 111
~ -100
~ .110
~ ~ -120
CI ",-130
.!: :;2-140
'gGl -150
III -160
-170
-180
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(d)

-50
I-Line 141
.: -60
c
g=
Gl
-70
==CIa.
~ -80
.-'gc "".- -90
Gl
III -100

-110
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e )

-50
I-Line 171
.: -60
c
Gl
-70
E=
~=,
CIa.
c .-
-80
.- ""
"0 -90
c
Gl
Ill-
-100

-110
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(f)
Fi9_ D.21 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(f) Line 17 for panel UB ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.

/
200

i 150 __ Line 1
Gl _____
Line 2
g ~ 100
::E,
""c. 50
..,
.E:O:
<:
~ 0

-50
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

500

iGl
400

E= 300
~=
",,0. 200

.., ...
.-<:-
<:
100
Gl
III
o
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b )

500
__ Line 7
400 __ line 8
C
= Gl
E 300
~="" 0. 200
.5 :i
-g 100
Gl
III
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

Fig. D.22 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
-70
-75
"i -80
!--Line31

~ -85
~ ~ -90
CI Q. -95
.5 :;;:-100
-g -105
~ -110
-115
-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

-20
.: -25 I--Line61
; -30 ..... .
E -35
~ ~-40
CI C-45
c-
is ""-50
; -55
III -60
-65
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

-20
.: -25 I--Line 91
; -30
g =-35
:E ii!-40
ClCo
.=~5
't:l
; -50
III -55
-60
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(f )

Fig. 0.22 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
350
300 I--Line 10 I
'E 250
., 200
g ;!:150
::l:~ 100
c>Q.
.5:it 50
-g 0
ll!l -50
-100
-150
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(a)

500
__ Line 12
400
i __ Line 13
~ 300
~ ~ 200
g'.e.100
-""
.,
-g 0
III -100
-200
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(b)

600
__ Line 15
500
i., 400
___ Line 16

g= 300
::l:~ 200
C>Q.
.5 :it 100
"C
:ij 0
III -100
-200
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e)
Fig. 0.23 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
50
30 I-Line 111
.:
<: 10
CI>
E
~ ~ -10
~ .e.-3D
.-."<: '"
CI>
-50
ttl
-70
-90
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(d)

100
I-+-Line 14 1

.: 50
<:
CI>
E:
~=
"'Q.
0

.., '"
<: .-
.-
<:
-50
CI>
ttl .100

-150
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e)

100
80
.: 60
I-+-Line 171
<:
CI> 40
E: 20
~~ 0
"'a.
..,.- '"
<: .- -20
<: -40
CI>
ttl -60
-80
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(f )
Fig. 0.23 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(I) Line 17 for panel UB ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
__ LINE 1 __ LINE 2 -b-L1NE 3
40 __ LINE 4 __ LINE 5

30

20

10

o
-10

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(a )

40

30

20

1ii 10
'",on;
E 0
iii
:.~
-10
'"
III

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End. ft

( b)

Fig. 0.24 Variation of Shearing stress, S,y along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.30 and K=100 kef.
-0.2
'-'-Une 1 __ Line2

-0.3 """,-Une 3 ~Line-4


_lineS

-0.4
c
'-.
c -05.
o
~ -0.6
Gl
;; -0.7
c
-0.8
-0.9
-1
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

-0.2
'-'-Une6 _Line 7

-0.3 -Ao-Line8 --M-Line9

-0.4
.5
C -0.5
0
~
U
Gl -0.6
;;:
Gl
C
-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b)
Fig. D.25 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100 kef.
700
__ Line 1
=.l:L 600
:;;: 500 --Line 2
.; 400
l:
G> 300
E
0 200
:5 100
Ol
l: 0
'6
l: -100
G>
lD -200
-300
Distance from End, ft

(al

800
=.l:L700 __ Line 4
:;;: 600
'i 500 --Line 5
G> 400
g 300
:5 200
g> 100
'6
l:
0
&l -100
.200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(b)

800
=.l:L700
:;;: 600 __ Line 7
'i 500
" 400 --Line 8
g 300
:5 200
g> 100
'6
l:
0
&l -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(cl

Fig. 0.26 Variation of bending moment, M, along (al lines 1,2, (bl lines 4, 5
(c) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100kef.

/ '\
100
•••Co I--Line3!
:;;:50
'i
o
~
:i! -50
'"
c:
:;; -100
c:
••
!Xl -150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d )

150
~
:;;: 100
'i 50
••
~ 0
:i!
g> -50
:;;
c: -100
••
!Xl
-150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e )

150
•••Co 100
:;;:
..:
c 50
•••
E
0 0
:i!
-50
'"
c
:;;
c -100
••
!Xl
-150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

( I)

Fig. D.26 Variation 01 bending moment, Mx along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(I) Line 9 lor panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100 kcl.
200

t:;;:
150
I-Line 101

i
CD
100
E
~ 50
Cl
c
'6
c
0
~
-50
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(a )

800
=Q.
700 __ Line 12
:;;; 600 --Line 13
1;" 500
CD
E 400
o
::I! 300
.='" 200
":; 100
al 0
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(b)

800
== 700 __ Line 15
Q.
:;;; 600 --Line 16
i
CD
500
E 400
a
::I! 300
Cl
.= 200
":; 100
al
o
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(c )
Fig. 0.27 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100 kef.

j:
-100
-110 I-Line 11 I
--
c -120
'"
:i~-130
CI 0.-140
C .-
'6 "'"-150
C
-160
'"
III
-170
-180
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(d)

-70
I-Line 141
.J
-80
C

'" -90
~=
::;:~ -100
CIa.
C .-
.- "'" -110
"C
C

'"
III
-120

-130
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(e)

-80
171
--
C
-90 I-Line

'"
E -100
0=
::;:~-110
CIa.
C .-
.- "'" -120
"C
C

'"
III
-130

-140
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(f )
Fig. 0.27 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(f) Line 17 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100 kef.

I
"
160
140
i 120
G> 100

0=
E""
:E, 60
g'.e-
80
40
'6"" 20
; 0
III -20
-40
-60
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

400
,.;
r: 300
G>

~=
E""

CIa.
200
100
.-r: "".-
"C
r:
G> 0
III
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

500
__ Line 7
400
,.;
r: --line 8
G> 300

~=
E""
ella.
r: .-
200
100
.- ""
"C
r:
G> 0
III
-100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

Fig. D.28 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100kef.
-50
-60
'1:"
Gl -70

~g> =.e.
E=
-80
-90
..,.- ""
:; -100
III
-110
-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

-20
J -25 I--Line61
:; -30
~ =-35
:n~-40
CIa.
.!:
.., :;<-45
:; -50
III -55
-60
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e)

-.10

J -15
c
Gl
E -20
0=
::E~-25
",a.
c .-
:;; ""-30
c
Gl
III -35

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(f )

Fig. D.28 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K=100 kef.
300
250 I--Line 10 I
i 200
~ ;:: 150
~= 100
g'.9- 50
.-c ""
"C 0
&l -50
-100
-150
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(a )

500
__ Line 12
.J 400 ___ Line 13
c
~ 300
~ ~ 200
g'.9-100
.-
-g ""
.,
lD -100
0

.200
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(b)

500
-+-Une 15
400
"E -'-Line 16
~ 300
~~200
g'.9- 100
.-
-g ""
.,
lD
0
-100
-200
o 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(c)
Fig. D.29 Variation of bending momenl, Mz along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel UB ratio 1.625 and K=100 kef.
. ,,
__ LINE1 •.•.•••LINE2 -<>-LINE3
40 -oo-L1NE4 •.•.•••LINE5

30

20

10

o
-10

-20

-30

-40
o 4 B 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a )

1--L1NE 6 •.•.•••L1NE7 -<>-L1NE B -oo-LINE 91


40

30

20
~
•• 10
"".,;
••
0
~
~
••••
J:: -10
'"
-20

-30

-40
o 4 B 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(b)

Fig. D.30 Variation of Shearing stress, S,y along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel UB ratio 1.625 and K=100 kef.

\
/"
,
,

••
o
-4-Une1 _Une2
-0.05 -6--Une3 --M-Une4
_lineS
-0.1
.5 -0.15
C -0.2
o
tl -0.25
ell
;;:: -0.3
ell
c -0.35
-0.4
-0.45
-0.5
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

o
-0.05 -+-Line 6 -'-Une 7

-"-Une 8 -*-Lme Q

-0.1
c -0.15
c' -0.2
o
tl -0.25
ell
'; -0.3
c -0.35
-0.4
-0.45
-0.5
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b )
Fig. 0.31 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.

/

500
;;: __ Line 1
Q. 400
:iii --Line 2
i 300
~ 200
:Ii! 100
'"
c
:;; a
i-lOa
lD
-200
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

700
;;: 600
Q. __ Line 4
:iii 500
iGl
400 --Line 5
E 300
:Ii! 200
.="
'" 100
a
c
Gl -100
lD
-200
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(b)

700
;;: 600
Q.
:iii 500 __ Line 7
iGl 400
--Line 8
E 300
:Ii! 200
~ 100
:;; a
c
Gl -lOa
lD
-200
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(c )

Fig. D.32 Variation of bending moment, Mx along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(c) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.
40
~
:;;: 20 (--Line 31
t 0
g
:;;
-20

'"
l: -40
=g -60
Gl
aI -80
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d )

60
=0.' 40 1 --Line 6 1

~ 20
5; 0
g -20
:;; -40
'"l:
'6 -60
5;
aI
-80
-100
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e )

60
~ 40
:;;: 20
i
Gl 0
g -20
:;; -40
Cl
l:
'6 -60
5;
aI
-80
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. D.32 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(I) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.

'-, .
2~0
4:: I-+-Line 10 I
i?c. 200
:;;:
'if 150

'"
E
o
100
~
'"
c 50
=g 0
'"
lD
-50
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

700
~ 600 __ Line 12
c.
:;;: 500 --Line 13
'"':Ii 400
E
~ 300
g> 200
'6
:Ii 100
lD
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b)

700
__ Line 15
~ 600
c.
:;;: 500 --Line 16

'"':Ii 400
E
~ 300
g> 200
'6
:Ii 100
lD
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(c )
Fig. D.33 Vanalion of bending momenl, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ralio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.
-40
-50 I--Line 11 I
~ -60
••
~=
:sale.
ij!
-70
-80
c:-
'6'" -90
c:
~ -100
-110
-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, fl

(d )

-30
-40
I--Line 141
~
•• -50

~:=
E=
-60

-~.E-
"tl
..• -70
;; -80
m
-90
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, fl

(e )

-40
I--Line 171
~ -50
••
~= -60
:sij!
ale.
.!:
"tl
:;;:-70
c:
~ -80

-90
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, fl

(f)
Fig. 0.33 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(I) Line 17 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.
250

i 200
--Line 1
••5 lI::: 150 ---Line 2
::E4i! 100
",,,,
,,:;<
:;; 50
~" o
-50
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

700
..: 600 -+-Line4
~" 500 --Line 5
~ ~ 400
g'.s.
300
-g.-
"" 200
~ 100
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

-+-Line 7
--Line 8

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

Fig. 0.34 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.
-50
-60
'i•• -70
E
~ ~ -80

-."g> ..•.9- -90


; -100
III -110

-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

-40

'i -50 I--Line61


••~ = -60
~ ii! -70
ClIO.
c: .-
'6 .•• -80
c:
8l -90
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e)

-40
-45
i- 50
•• -55
~ =-60
~ ii!-65
g> .9-
,-~ 70
-g -75
8l .80
-85
-90
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. D.34 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(I) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.
500
400 I--Line 10 I
i
~ 300
~ ~ 200
g'.e.100
-""
-g 0
'"
III
-100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a)

700
600 __ Line 12
.:
a; 500 --Line 13

~ ==
E 400
300
g'.e. 200
;; "" 100
; 0
III -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b )

700
600
t 500
=
E
~=
400
300
g'.e. 200
;; "" 100
; 0
III -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(c )
Fig. D.35 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kcf.
__ LINE3
--LINE 1 -+-LINE 2
40 -+-LINE 5
--LINE 4

30

20
'lii
••• 10
<Ii
••
0
~
~
••
"
s:
til
-10

-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a )

1--L1NE6 -+-L1NE? __ L1NE8 __ L1NE9!


40

30

20

'lii
••• 10
<Ii

0
~
~
••"
s: -10
"'
-20

-30

-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(b)

Fig. D.36 Variation of Shearing stress, S,y along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.0 and K = 200 kef.
o
••...••.•• L.ine1 _Une2

"""'-L.ine 3 --*-Une '"


__ L.ine5
-0.1
c
C -0.2
o
~
Ql
'; -0.3
c
-0.4

-0.5
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

o
••...••.•• Une 6 L.ine7

-6-1.1ne 8 Line9

-0.1

.=C -0.2
o
~
Ql

~ -0.3
c
-0.4

-0.5
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b )
Fig. D.37 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
=
for panel US ratio 1.30 and K 200 kef.
600
=.Co500
__ Line 1
:i! 400 --Line 2
i~ 300
~ 200
100
l!'
'6 0
~ -100
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, It

(a)

700
=.Co 600 __ Line 4
:i! 500
i 400 --Line 5
~ 300
~ 200
l!' 100
'6
c:
0
., -100
CD
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, It

(b)

700
=.Co600
:i! 500 __ Line 7
i 400 --Line 8
~ 300
~ 200
g> 100
'6
c:
0
., -100
CD
-200
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, It

(e )

Fig. 0.38 Varialion of bending momenl, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7,8 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.
60
40
20
i•• 0
~ -20
:IE -40
III

:gc -60
•• -80
III -100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

80
60
40
i 20
••E 0
~ -20
g> -40
:;; -60
c
~ -80
-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e)

80
.; 60
Q.
:;;a 40
i 20
•• 0
E
~ -20
"" -40
g> -60
:;; -80
c
~ -100
-120
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

( f)

Fig. 0.38 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(I) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kcf.


200
I....•.....Line I
i
:;;;
150
10

"i 100
••
~
:;; 50
c
""
:;; 0
c
••
III
-50
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(a)

700
=~ 600 __ Line 12
a.
:;;; 500 --Line 13
.:
lii 400
E
o 300
:;;
g' 200
'6
c 100
••
III
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(b)

700
=
~ 600
__ Line 15
a.
:;;; 500 --Line 16

~ 400
E
o 300
:;;
g' 200
'6
c 100
••
III
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e)
Fig. D.39 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel UB ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.



-70

i
-75
-80
I--Line 111
co -85
E
~ ~ .90
'" C. -95
.E •• -100
-gco -105
lD -110
-115
-120
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(d)

-50

.: .60
I--Line 141
c:
co
~;= -70
:E i? -80
"'Cl.
c: .-
-g-"'" -90
co
lD -100

-110
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e)

-50
-60 I--Line 171
.:
c:
co
-70
~;=
:E i?
-80
"'Cl.
c: .-
.- "'" -90
"c:co
lD
-100
-110
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(f)
Fig. 0.39 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(I) Line 17 for panel VB ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.

180
160
'i 140 --Line 1
•• 120
~ =100 ---Line 2
:;: =. 80
"'.9- 60
.5""
'tl
40
lii 20
III 0
-20
-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a )

500

'i 400
••
~ ~ 300
g' .9- 200
.- ""
'tl
lii 100
III
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

500
__ Line 7
oJ' 400 --Line 8
c
••E = 300
~=
'" Q. 200
.E:i
'g 100
••
III
o
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e )

Fig. 0.40 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel UB ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.

-40

iGl
-50 I-Line31
0==.
E
::E
-60
-70
"'Co
.5:;
'g -80
Gl
lD -90

-100
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

-20

iGl
-30
E
~ ~-40
",Co.
.5 :ii-50
't:l
c
Gl -60
lD

-70
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(e)

-20

-60
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(f)

Fig. 0.40 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.

350
300 I--Line 10 I
i 250
•• 200
~ 4:: 150
:::;; iii! 100
",c.
.5:;;: 50
-g 0
~ -50
-100
-150
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(al

500
__ Line 12
• 400
'E --Line 13
~ 300
~ ~ 200
g'.e. 100
-'"
-g 0
••
III -100
-200
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(b )

500
_ 400
c
~ 300
~~200
g'.E.100
-g '"
.- 0
••
III -100

-200
o 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(el
Fig. D.41 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(e) Lines 15, 16 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.

50

30 I-Line 11 I
J
c
••
E 10

~ ~ -10
CIa.
c-
.- '"
c -30
"••
III
-50

.70
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(d)

100
I-Line 141
J
c 50
••E=
~=
CIa.
c- -50
0

-'"
"••
c
-100
III

-150
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(e )

100
80
I-Line 171
J 60
c
•• 40

~=
E=

CIa. 0
c .-
20

.- '" -20
"••
c
-40
III
-60
-80
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from end, ft

(f )
Fig. 0.41 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(I) Line 17 for panel US ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.

__ LINE2
-+-L1NE 1 -6-L1NE 3
40 __ LINE4 __ LINES

30

20
'lii
•• 10
••••
!: 0
'"
~
~
••
.r: -10
'" -20

-30

-40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End. ft

(a )

1-+-L1NE 6 __ LINE7 -6-L1NE 8 --LINE 91


40

30

20

'lii
•• 10
••••f
0
iii
~
~
••
.r: -10
'"
-20

-30

-40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft

(b)

Fig. D.42 Variation of Shearing stress, S,y along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.30 and K = 200 kef.
o
r=:::;'=L;=,.:7'-=.=L=ine'"'2'
•....••••.Line3 -M--Line 4
-0.1 __ Line 5

.5 -0.2
C
o
tl -0.3
CIl
';
c -0.4

-0.5

-0.6
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(a )

o
~Line6 _Line 7

••..•••••. Line8 ~Lineg


-0.1

c -0.2
C
o
tl -0.3
CIl
';
c -0.4

-0.5

-0.6
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from end, ft

(b)
Fig. 0.43 Variation of deflection along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.
Fig. 0.44 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel UB ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.
100
i:iii 50 I--Line31
J
C
Gl
E
o
o
:;: -50
'"
c
;; -100
;
III
-150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(d)

150
;r
Q,
100
:iii
J
c 50
Gl
E
0 0
:;:
-50
'"
c
;;
c -100
Gl
III
-150
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e )

150
;r
Q,
100
:iii
J
I--Line91
c 50
Gl
E
0 0
:;:
-50
'"
c
;;
c -100
Gl
III
-150
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(I)

Fig. D.44 Variation 01 bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(I) Line 9 lor panel US ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kel.
250
0= I--Line 10 I
~ 200
Q.
:;;;
..r 150
l:
••E 100
0
::E
01 50
l:
'6
l: 0
••
III
-50
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(a )

800
0=
~ 700 -+-Line 12
~ 600 --Line 13
..r 500
l:
••E 400
0
::E 300
01
.E 200
"
~ 100
III
0
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(b)

800
0=
~ 700
Q.
:;;; 600
..r 500
l:
••E 400
0
::E 300
01
.5 200
"~ 100
III
0
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from end, ft

(c)
Fig. D.45 Variation of bending moment, M, along (a) line 10, (b) lines 12,13
(c) Lines 15,16 for panel UB ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.
,
/ )
\
160
140
i 120 -Line 1
., 100
~= 80
::E ii! 60
---Line 2

CIa.
.5:;;: 40
-g 20
&l a
-20
-40
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a )

400
c.,
.:
300
E=
~=
CIa.
c-
200
100
.-
."., ""
C
a
III
-lOa
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68

Distance from End, ft


(b)

500
__ Line 7
400
.,
.:
c
300
--Line 8

E=
~=
CIa.
200

.-." ""
c- 100
.,
C

III
a
-100
a 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(e)

Fig. D.46 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (a) lines 1, 2, (b) lines 4, 5
(e) Lines 7, 8 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.
-50

i -60
~
~ ~ -70
,
"'a.
.E :;;; .80
•••c
~ -90

-" -15 I--Line91


c
E" -20
0=
::15 ~-25
"'a.
c-
:;; ""'-30
c
"
al -35
-40
o 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

( f)

Fig. D.46 Variation of bending moment, M, along (d) line 3, (e) line 6
(f) Line 9 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.
300 ..~-'~~--_._
..,...~~.~.~-~
.--~~'l
250 I-Line 101
~200
~ : 150 I
:l! ~
"'e.e.
-"'"
100
50. ,JI
.•• ' '0
e' .
~-50
-100
-150
o J 10 or. 20., 40"
Distance from end, ft n

(a)\I1.

., - - "-"-- .><-.>.-', •• _.
"0-;' "'''''.-''' - ••
500
~ .400
...,.+- Line 12
--Line 13
••
= .
:l! = 200
E
300

g> .9-100
-"'"
••• .
; f 0
m '-100
-200
o 10 • • 20; . 30 ' 40::
Distarice'liomen8,ft ~

(b)'"

500 ",--
400 --Llne 15
~ ..... ~-Lij'u~ 16
~300
:l! ~ 200
g>.9- 100
--g "'" 0
••
m -100
-200
o 10 20. 30 .• 40 " ,"j
Dis~ance from !"d, ft, . '/

(c)
Fig, 0.47 Variation of bending moment. Mz along' (a) line .1O;'(bj'lines '1'2,13 ' ," ~i.
: (e) Lines 15. 16 for panel US ratio 1,625 and K=200 'kef. :.d ~-!
50

30 I-Line 111
.;
c
"
E 10

~tl0
CI'"
c .-
-""
'D
c -30
"
rll
-50

-70
10 20 30 40
0
Distance from end, ft

(d)

50
I_Line 141
.; 25
c
"
E=
0
~~ -25
CI'"
c-
-""
'D
c
-50

"
rll -75

-100
10 20 30 40
0
Distance from end, ft

(e)

80
60 I-Line 171
.;
c 40
"E= 20
~=
CIa.
c .-
0
:;; "" -20
c
-40
rll " -60
-80
10 20 30 40
0
Distance from end, ft

( f)
Fig. 0.47 Variation of bending moment, Mz along (d) line 11, (e) line 14
(f) Line 17 for panel US ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.
___ LINE 1 •••.•.•.•LI NE 2 •••.••..••L1NE 3
40 __ LINE 4 •••.•.•.•LINE 5

30

20

-••
••••• 10
••
!~ 0

•• -10
"
~
Ul

-20

-30

-40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(a)

1---L1NE 6 __ LINE 7 •••.••..••LI NE 8 -- LI N E 91


40

30

20

-...••
•• 10

g•• 0
Ul
:a
" -10
~
Ul

-20

-30

-40
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
Distance from End, ft

(b)

Fig. D.48 Variation of Shearing stress, S,y along (a) lines 1-5, (b) lines 6-9
for panel US ratio 1.625 and K = 200 kef.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi