COMPUTERS &

STRUCTURES
INC.
R
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2



EXAMPLE 4-001
ASOLID SOIL SUPPORTING UNIFORMLY LOADED CIRCULAR FOOTING
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example, the asolid element is used to study distribution of vertical
displacement and vertical stress in the soil beneath a uniformly loaded circular
footing. The results from the axisymmetric SAP2000 model are compared with
hand-calculated results.
Only a small portion of the semi-infinite soil medium is modeled. The radius of
the footing is 10 feet. A one radian segment of a circular column of soil that is
250 feet deep and has a 100-foot radius is modeled. The soil is assumed to have a
modulus of elasticity of 2,000 ksf and a Poissons ratio of 0.25. The footing
exerts a uniform 5 ksf load on the soil.
10' 10' 90'
2
5
0
'
5 ksf soil surface
loading from footing
Soil surface
C
L
C
L
Sym

EXAMPLE 4-001 - 1
COMPUTERS &
STRUCTURES
INC.
R
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2



GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING
Z
X
10' 90'
5 ksf
2
5
0
'
U
x
restraint along
this edge, typical
U
z
restraint along
base, typical
Soil Properties
E = 2,000 k/ft
2
= 0.25
Elements 5 feet wide
by 5 feet deep
Elements 5 feet wide
by 1 foot deep
Elements 1 foot wide
by 1 foot deep
Elements 1 foot wide
by 5 feet deep

EXAMPLE 4-001 - 2
COMPUTERS &
STRUCTURES
INC.
R
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2



TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED
Analysis using asolid elements
Asolid surface pressure load
Incompatible bending modes for asolid objects
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are calculated using data published in Poulos and Davis
1974. Results are presented separately for the models with and without the
incompatible bending modes option.

With Incompatible Modes
Output
Parameter Vertical Location SAP2000 Independent
Percent
Difference*
z =0 ft -0.0467
-0.0469 0%
z =-5 ft -0.0374
-0.0376 -1%
z =-10 ft -0.0284
-0.0286 -1%
z =-40 ft -0.0094
-0.0095 -1%
U
z

ft
At x =0 ft
z =-80 ft -0.0047
-0.0048 -2%
z =0 ft -4.993
-5.000 0%
z =-5 ft -4.298
-4.553 -6%
z =-10 ft -3.285
-3.232 -2%
z =-40 ft -0.433
-0.435 0%
Vertical stress
ksf
At x =0 ft
z =-80 ft -0.122
-0.115 +6%


EXAMPLE 4-001 - 3
COMPUTERS &
STRUCTURES
INC.
R
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2




Without Incompatible Modes
Output
Parameter Vertical Location SAP2000 Independent
Percent
Difference*
z =0 ft -0.0464
-0.0469 -1%
z =-5 ft -0.0371
-0.0376 -1%
z =-10 ft -0.0282
-0.0286 -1%
z =-40 ft -0.0094
-0.0095 -1%
U
z

ft
At x =0 ft
z =-80 ft -0.0047
-0.0048 -2%
z =0 ft -5.260
-5.000 +5%
z =-5 ft -4.265
-4.553 -6%
z =-10 ft -3.127
-3.232 -3%
z =-40 ft -0.436
-0.435 0%
Vertical stress
ksf
At x =0 ft
z =-80 ft -0.122
-0.115 +6%

COMPUTER FILES: Example 4-001-incomp, Example 4-001-comp
CONCLUSIONS
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results both with and without the incompatible bending modes option.
The results for this example problem are not controlled by bending behavior.
Thus the incompatible bending modes option has little effect on the results.
In general, when bending is a significant contributor to the results of an example
problem, models that do not use the incompatible bending modes option require a
much more refined mesh to obtain results comparable to similar models that use
the incompatible bending modes option.
In general, the incompatible bending modes option should always be used
for asolid element models.
EXAMPLE 4-001 - 4
COMPUTERS &
STRUCTURES
INC.
R
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2



HAND CALCULATION

EXAMPLE 4-001 - 5
COMPUTERS &
STRUCTURES
INC.
R
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 2




EXAMPLE 4-001 - 6