Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www . elsevier . com/locate/engstruct

Foundation and overall structure designs of continuous spread footings

along with soil spatial variability and geological anomaly

S. Imanzadeh, A. Denis, A. Marache

Universit de Bordeaux, CNRS, UMR 5295-I2M, GCE Department, Bt. B18, Alle Geoffroy St Hilaire, CS 50023, 33615 Pessac Cedex, France
Continuous spread footing Differential settlement

article info

Foundation and overall structure designs Geological anomaly

Article history:

Low stiffness zone Spatial variability Finite element method

Received 27 June 2013

Soilfoundation interaction Geostatistics

Revised 21 February 2014

abstract
Accepted 8 April 2014

Available online 4 May 2014

Keywords:

Spatial variability of soil properties and geological anomaly can be very important in the case of
low weight buildings with continuous spread footings inducing differential settlements which can
have harmful consequences on the structure. They are also the major source of uncertainty in the
choice of the soil design parameters. In this study, the design of continuous spread footings is
performed with two approaches: the first approach with a foundation design using a onedimensional finite element modeling and the second approach with an overall structure design
using a three-dimensional finite element modeling. These approaches are compared for two
cases: the first case dealing with the spatial variability of soil modulus and the second case with
the spatial variability of soil modulus coupled with the presence of a geological anomaly (low

stiffness zone of soil). Spatial

variability of soil modulus is
modeled by geostatistical
methods using data from a real
construction site. The values of
the maximum settlements,
maximum differential settlements
and maximum bending moments
obtained from the both

approaches for the first case are nearly close together where the latter values for the second case
are sig-nificantly greater than the first case. These results show that in the case of the presence of
a geological anomaly on the construction site, the overall structure design appears the more
appropriate approach compared to the foundation design in the design of continuous spread
footings.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.019 0141-0296/ 2014
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Soil exhibits spatial heterogeneities resulting from the history

of its deposition and aggregation processes, which occur in
differ-ent physical and chemical environments. This inherent
or natural variability can be also accompanied by a
geological anomaly. A geological anomaly is any inclusion
that is of different properties from that normally expected in
a design soil profile. This anomaly may include weak
pockets or lenses of clay in a sand layer, cavities or boulders
in soils. The presence of these unfavorable materials could
lead to unsatisfactory foundation and overall structure
performance.

The natural variability accompanied by a geological anomaly

can be very important in the case of superficial geotechnical
works inducing differential settlements, which can have
harmful conse-quences on the structure. For example in low
weight buildings with continuous spread footings, damage
can range from sticking doors and hairline plaster cracks to
complete destruction. Kumar et al. studied the sources of
these natural variability and the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 5 40 00 88 27; fax: +33 5 40 00 31 13.

E-mail addresses: s.imanzadeh@i2m.u-bordeaux1.fr (S. Imanzadeh),
alain.

denis@u-bordeaux.fr (A. Denis), antoine.marache@u-bordeaux.fr (A.

Marache).

presence of a geological anomaly in foundation design

parameters [1]. Raychowdhury et al. studied the shallow
foundation response variability due to parameter uncertainty
[2].

In foundation design, a low weight building is simply

modeled with a one-dimensional modeling of a continuous
spread footing with a loading [3]. However, in overall
structure design, this low weight building is modeled with a
two or three dimensional modeling of its continuous spread
footings along with building elements such as columns,
beams, walls and slabs [4].

In these conventional designs and dimensioning

computations, continuous spread footings are often
designed on the basis of the deterministic approaches
where natural variability of soil and uncertainty related to
imperfect knowledge of the presence of a geological
anomaly of soil, in their longitudinal directions are usu-ally
not considered. These effects and the soilshallow
foundation interaction along the longitudinal direction of
continuous spread footings need to be taken into account
and studied in order to perform an accurate analysis leading
to correct designs.

In this research work, two approaches are used for the

design of continuous spread footings: the first approach with
a foundation design using a one-dimensional finite element
modeling (1D) and the second approach with an overall
structure design using a three-dimensional finite element
modeling (3D). These approaches

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

213

are compared for two cases: the first case,

taking into account the spatial variability of soil
modulus (Es) and the second case, taking into
consideration the spatial variability of soil
modulus accompa-nied by the presence of a
geological anomaly as a lens of clayey soil of
weak mechanical properties. Through these
both approaches and cases, the soilshallow
foundation interaction along the longi-tudinal
direction of continuous spread footings is then
studied in order to better understand the
influence of the spatial variability of Es and a
geological anomaly on the maximum
settlement, max-imum differential settlement
and maximum bending moment.

elements. In the case of a continuous spread

footing and particularly when a differential settlement may appear, the longitudinal behavior
of spread footing should be taken into
consideration.

In the past, many researchers have worked on

the soilstructure interaction which is referred
to as beams and plates on elastic foundations.
Most of the previous work began with Winklers
well known model with one parameter [15],
which was originally developed for the analysis
of railroad tracks. This model is expressed by
the following equation (Eq. (1)):

px ks _ b _ wx
In order to achieve this goal, geological
conditions of the studied construction site and
available data from the geophysical and geotechnical investigations are presented.
Thereafter, the appropriate geostatistical
methods (collocated ordinary cokriging and
condi-tional simulations [5,6]) are used to
model the spatial variability of Youngs soil
modulus (Es) on a construction site. This
spatial var-iability are then used through the
finite element modeling of the Winkler soil
foundation interaction model in the longitudinal
direction [714] along with and without the
presence of a geolog-ical anomaly for both
geotechnical and structural designs of
continuous spread footings. From these
numerical models, the maximum settlements,
maximum differential settlements, maximum
bending moments and their uncertainties are
obtained in order to perform a statistical
analysis that describes the longitu-dinal
behavior of continuous spread footings in 1D
and 3D models. Finally, a comparison between
the obtained results from founda-tion and
overall structure designs is done to study
firstly, the influ-ence of the spatial variability of
soil modulus and secondly, the influence of this
spatial variability coupled with the presence of
a geological anomaly on the behavior of
continuous spread footings.

where ks is the coefficient of subgrade

reaction, w(x) is the deflec-tion, b is a width of
the foundation and p(x) is the reactive
pressure of the foundation. Winklers
idealization considers the soil as being a
system of identical but mutually independent,
closely spaced, dis-crete, linearly elastic
springs. According to this idealization, deformation of foundation due to applied load is
confined to loaded regions only. Furthermore
this model cannot transmit the shear stresses
which are derived from the lack of spring
coupling [16,17]. Vlassov and Leontiev [18],
recognizing the difficulty to determine values of
ks for soils, postulated a two-parameter model.
The continuity in this model is characterized by
the consideration of the shear layer. Kerr [19]
attempted to make Winklers model more
realistic by assuming some forms of interaction
among the spring elements that represent the
soil continuum even though it requires more
parameters (three-parameter mathematical
model).

Winklers model, due to its simplicity, has been

extensively used to solve many soilfoundation
interaction problems and has given satisfactory
results for many practical problems. Further-

2. Soilshallow foundation interaction model

more, this model seems, from a practical point
of view, to be appropriate for lightweight
structures such as a low weight building.
In the conventional calculations of the shallow
foundations design, the behavior is only
studied in a cross section to represent the
transverse behavior of the foundation

The differential equation governing the

deflection, w(x), of a homogeneous elastic
bending beam with constant bending stiffness
resting on Winklers model and subjected to a
vertical continuous load, q(x), can be written as
[20]:

footings, is considered in this study in order to

obtain a value of the soil reaction modulus (Eq.
(3)).

ks

Ec _ I
d4wx

0:65
:

ks _ b _ wx qx
12

Es

dx

where Ec _ I is the constant bending stiffness

of the beam (Ec and I are respectively Youngs
modulus of concrete and the moment of inertia
of the cross section of the foundation). When
the deflection w(x) is known, the bending
moment and shear force can be determined.

Numerous expressions or semi-empirical

models are available to determine the soil
reaction modulus (ks) as a function of the
studied applications [9,2124]. The Vesic
semi-empirical model (Vesic [25]), commonly
used in the design of continuous spread

12Esb

mechanical property of the continuous spread

footing (Ec) (Eq. (3)).

_
m2

Induced reactions of the whole structure in the

Winkler model (be it a single foundation beam
or an overall superstructure) deduced on the
basis of a certain distribution of a subgrade
coeffi-cient if applied in the opposite sense on
the supporting soil mass with a given directly
determined geotechnical property as the
Young modulus (Es) and the Poisson ratio (ms)
of soil, cannot ensure that the very same
settlements which have been assumed for the
subgrade system will be developed also on the
soil surface.

When the structure rigidity is significant, using

the Winkler model is valid. This has been
pointed out earlier in the well known study
carried out by Stavridis et al. for the two
dimensional analy-sis of the concrete tunnel
frame [16].

Ec h

3. Finite element models for foundation and

overall structure designs of continuous spread
footings

The influence of the soil spatial variability on a

spread footing, using a finite element model,
was studied by Cassidy et al. [26]. The finite
element method has been largely used in
numerous studies to model the soilstructure
interaction: Denis et al. studied soilshallow
foundation interactions [27], Dubost et al. [7]
and Niandou et al. [8] analyzed soilpile
interaction, Elachachi et al. [911], Buco et al.
[1214] studied soilburied pipe interactions.

where Es is the Youngs soil modulus, ms the

Poissons ratio of soil, b, h and Ec are
respectively width, height and Youngs
modulus of a continuous spread footing.

In this section the finite element models for

foundation and overall structure designs of the
considered continuous spread foot-ings in this
study are presented. We take a low weight
building with four continuous spread footings
with lengths of 10 m and 6 m along with

Soil reaction modulus (ks) is not an intrinsic

parameter of soil. The calculation of this

concrete columns (cross section: 20 _ 20 cm ),

modulus is a function of soil parameters (Es,

ms), the parameters related to the geometry of

the continuous spread footing (b, h) and a

beams (cross section: 20 _ 20 cm ) and floor

slab (thickness: 15 cm). Continuous spread
footings, for low weight buildings with relatively
lightly loaded walls, consist of concrete strips
with a rectangular cross section, placed under
masonry walls. We take the common
dimensions of a spread footing for a low weight

214

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

buildings: a width of 0.5 m and a height of 0.3

m. Youngs modulus of the foundation (Ec) and
Poissons ratio of soil are respectively equal to
20 GPa and 0.3 with a uniform loading of 30
kN per running meter.

In foundation design (1D), this low weight

building is modeled with a continuous spread
footing (for example for a spread footing of 6
m) as a beam resting on an elastic soil with a
uniform loading of 30 kN per running meter as
illustrated in Fig. 1. Finite element modeling of
this spread footing has 12 elements and 13
nodes.

However, in overall structure design (3D), this

low weight building is modeled with four
continuous spread footings along with
concrete columns, beams and floor slab in
order to make it close to reality. Finite element
modeling of these spread footings has 64
elements and 64 nodes ( Fig. 2).

The computations are performed with the

CASTEM software [28] using the Winkler
model.

In the following the geological conditions of the

studied construction site and available data
from the geophysical and geotechnical
investigations are briefly presented.

4. Presentation of the studied site and

available data

The study site with a surface area of 25,000

2

m is located to the south of the city of Pessac

in France. In view of its large area, it was
decided to implement a preliminary VLF-R
type of geophysical survey campaign in order
to qualify the homogeneity of the site, and
ascertain zones most suitable for construction,
before proceed-ing with borehole and pressure
meter soundings.

The reconnaissance of a site of large surface

area using an R (Resistivity) mode VLF (Very

Low Frequency) technique can provide an

interesting alternative to conventional methods
such as the direct current electrical method
[29,30]. The measurement points of soil
resistivity obtained from this technique are
distrib-uted over uniform profiles with mean
spacing of 10 m between measurement points.
The profiles are aligned in the eastwest
direction, over a length of approximately 190
m. The full reconnaissance campaign included
a total of 272 soil resistivity measurement
points ( Fig. 3).

The reconnaissance soundings (6 auger

boreholes to a depth of 8 m) and twelve
pressuremeter tests (depth of boreholes
ranging between 1 and 7 m) enabled the
surface formations detected using the VLF-R
technique to be confirmed ( Fig. 3).
Deformation modulus (EPMT) and limit
pressures (PL) are obtained for each sounding
from the pressuremeter test. The
pressuremeter soundings made to a maximum
depth of 12 m, including a test measurement
every meter, confirmed the sandy-clayey
character of the soil with, for some soundings,
the presence of sand, which occurs as
embedded lenses rather than continuous
seams or layers at depths greater than 7 m.
Pressuremeter sounding allows the detection
of a lens of clayey soil of weak mechanical
properties at the depth of 2 4 m. The average
values found for the limit pressure and the

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the finite element modeling for

foundation design of spread footing of 6 m with free ends
as boundary conditions (one dimensional model (1D)).

We choose two appropriate geostatistical

methods (multivari-ate geostatistical estimation
following by conditional simulations) to model
the spatial variability of soil modulus (Es) on
the con-struction site using ISATIS software.
For doing this, we need to perform a
variographical analysis of available data. In the
following sections, we explain the theoretical
parts for a variographical anal-ysis and the two
considered geostatistical methods together
with the application of these methods using
real data in order to model the spatial
variability of soil modulus. This modulus can
be assessed from pressuremeter modulus,
using common relation: EPMT = a _ Es where a
is structural or rheological coefficient [31].

5.1. Variographical analysis

Most geostatistical methods rely on a

variogram model, which quantifies the spatial
structure of the target parameter [5]. Firstly,
the experimental variogram must be
calculated. It describes how the spatial
variability between data values evolves with
the dis-tance between the data. The
experimental variogram c(h) is defined by:

ch
Fig. 2. Schematic view of the finite element modeling for
overall structure design of spread footings (a three
dimensional model (3D)).

1Nh

deformation modulus for each sounding are

provided in Table 1. The ratio between the
mean deformation modulus and the mean limit
pressure ranged between 5 and 8.1, thus
confirming the sandy-clayey character of the
soils encountered [31].

5. Geostatistical workflows

Geostatistics are well suited for estimating the

geotechnical parameters in heterogeneous
soils [27]. Compared to classical statistics,
geostatistical methods take into account the
spatial variability of the target parameter, in
order to provide realistic spatial estimates
together with a quantification of the associated
uncertainty.

Zxi h _ Zxi
2

2Nh

i1

where Z(x) denotes the target variable

measured at location x and N(h) corresponds
to the number of pairs of points separated by a
distance of h.

During the variographical analysis, it is

important to compute the experimental
variogram in various directions in order to
iden-tify directions of anisotropy if such
anisotropy exists.
The experimental variogram is not sufficient for
a geostatistical estimation or simulation and an
analytical mathematical function has to be
fitted to the experimental variogram: the
variogram model. A variogram model is usually
defined by some parameters: the type of basic
mathematical model, its sill and its range for a
stationary model. Usually, the variability
between points increases

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

215

Fig. 3. Localization of the VLF point measurements, wells and pressuremeter tests in the studied area.

Table 1
Average values for the deformation modulus EPMT and pressure limit PL.

FP1
FP2
FP3
FP4
FP5
FP6
FP7
FP8
FP9
FP10
FP11
FP12

PMT

3.71
3.21
5.1
3.55
4.41
6.5
3.88
4.38
4.46
3.58
3.65

(MPa)

4.19

(MPa)

0.73
0.64
0.8
0.5
0.81
1.05
0.69
0.87
0.88
0.7
0.45

0.7

PMT

5.08
5.02
6.38
7.1
5.44
6.19
5.62
5.03
5.06
5.11

8.11
7

and becomes stabilized at a given variogram value called the sill. The
range (or correlation length) is the distance at which the variogram
reaches the sill value. The variogram will be used for the geostatistical
estimation and conditional simulations that are explained in the
ensuing sections.

Z_x0 w0 Sx0 wza Zxa wsa Sxa

5.2. Multivariate geostatistical estimation (collocated cokriging)

a1

When we have a variable of interest or main variable known in few

points and an auxiliary variable known in a lot of points in the domain,
in this case, a multivariate geostatistical estimation called collocated
ordinary cokriging is particularly appropriate [6]. The collocated
ordinary cokriging estimator is (Eq. (5), [6]):

where x0 is the point where the main variable (Z) is to be estimated, Z (x0)
is the estimated value of the main variable at point x0, w0 is the weight
assigned to the value of the auxiliary variable (S) at point x 0, a is an index
numbering the samples from 1 to n, Z(xa) are the values of the main
variable at point xa, S(xa) are the values of the auxiliary variable at point xa,
w

In order to use this method, a correlation must exist between the

variable of interest (soil modulus in this case) and the auxiliary variable
(soil resistivity). In a clayey-sandy soil with no important change in
water content, the more the proportion of sand there is, the more there
are deformation modulus and resistivity. Thus, it is assumed that
deformation modulus is indirectly linked to soil resistivity derived from
geophysical methods [3,27,32]. A linear relationship with a correlation
of 0.6 was obtained between the deformation modulus and resistivity
values.

are the weights assigned to the values of the main variable (Z) at point

xa and w

are the weights assigned to the values of the auxiliary variable

at point xa.

This multivariate technique requires the computation and fitting of a

variogram model that contains simple variograms for each variable
and a cross variogram measuring the spatial correla-tion between both
variables.

The dataset in this study is constituted of a few set of pressure-meter

boreholes with the deformation modulus EPMT values (12 data of
interest) and a lot of soil resistivity values (272 auxiliary data) [27]. For
the collocated cokriging a bivariate variogram model is required.
Nevertheless, because the small number of soil modulus values, this
bivariate model is tedious to establish. For this reason, a bundled
version of the collocated cokriging is used which takes into account
only the variogram model of the auxiliary variable (soil resistivity) with
the circular neighborhood equal to 50 m, along with an exponential
2

component model with a sill equal to 85 (X m) associated with a

range equal to 37 m (Eq. (6)), which represents the isotropic
variogram for the dataset,

216

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

which is also represented by a red line in Fig.

4. The bivariate model is deduced from this
model and from the coefficient of correlation
and variance ratio between both variables.

37
h
85:
1

_
exp
_3h
;
h : lag m

__

The collocated cokriging map of soil modulus

(Es) (mean and its coefficient of variation equal
to 8.3 MPa and 0.18 respectively) is displayed
in Fig. 5. This estimation is done over a
regular grid with a mesh of 10 m _ 10 m. The
spatial soil modulus distribution illus-trates the
heterogeneity of the surface layer formations
on this site.

This estimation method gives a smoothed

image of the reality, thus underestimates the
proportion of extreme values. The final aim of
this work is to study the effects of the spatial
variability of soil modulus on the foundation

and overall structure designs of continuous

spread footings. Thus it is important to be able
to evaluate a geotechnical parameter value
and its uncertainty at a location. In our case,
extreme low values especially can be very
important in the longitudinal behavior of
continuous spread footings.

In order to satisfy these remarks, we have

chosen to use the conditional simulation
method that is explained in the following
section.

5.3. Conditional simulations

Conditional simulations are useful to obtain

realistic pictures of spatial variability. There are
many conditional simulation methods that can
be used. We have chosen to use the turning
bands method [5] which enables the
construction of simulations in space from
simulations on lines. The turning bands
method was first used by Chentsov [33] in the
special case of Brownian random functions.
The general principle of the method appears
as a remark in Matrn [34], but its
development for simulations is due to
Matheron [35]. Chils and Delfiner [5] gave a
fairly complete description of this method.

Because modulus values will be input data of

finite element modeling (see Section 3) 1000
simulations will be realized on a regular grid
2

with a mesh of 0.5 _ 0.5 m to obtain more

values of

Fig. 5. Collocated ordinary cokriging estimate for soil

modulus.

Es beneath a structure. Starting from

2

estimation results on a 10 _ 10 m mesh

(Section 5.2) and computing new results on a
2

0.5 _ 0.5 m mesh is authorized by the

application of the three perpendicular theorem
[5]. Finally, results will be analyzed in terms of
cumulative distribution function by postprocessing simulations results.

In the following, the influences of the spatial

variability of soil modulus and geological
anomaly of soil on the maximum settle-ment,
maximum differential settlement and maximum
bending moment of continuous spread footings
using foundation and overall structure designs
are studied.

6. Foundation and overall structure designs of

continuous spread footings

The location of the considered low weight

building along with the four spread footings on
the construction site is depicted in Fig. 6. The
soil parameters, the load, concrete columns,
beams, floor slab, the mechanical property and
the geometrical dimensions of these spread
footings are identical to those previously
presented in this paper (see Section 3). For
this location of spread footings, the values of

Youngs soil modulus are obtained at each

node of a

Fig. 4. Experimental (black line) and modeled (red line) isotropic variograms of the

soil resistivity. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
low weight building with lengths of 10 m and 6 m

reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

on the construction site.

Fig. 6. Four spread footings of a

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

217

grid (every 0.5 m) from the 1000 conditional

simulations results. From these values of Es,
the values of subgrade reaction modulus (ks)
for the Vesic model are obtained by Eq. (3),
representing 64,000 values of ks. These values
of subgrade reaction modulus are then
introduced in the finite element model to obtain
the max-imum settlement, maximum
differential settlement and maximum bending
moment for each spread footing of the building
for each simulation. Then the 1000 results for
the maximum settlement, maximum differential
settlement and maximum bending moment for
each continuous spread footing can be
transformed in the form of cumulative
distribution function.

Fig. 7 depicts the data distribution of Es for the

four spread footings taking into account the
spatial variability of Es on the con-struction
site. For the soil modulus probability between
1% and 99%, the interval of soil modulus
values for the spread footings (1), (2), (3) and
(4) are respectively [7.2,8.26], [7.25,9.2],
[7.5,9.37] and [7.3,8.36] MPa.

The results of the foundation (1D) and overall

structure (3D) designs will be presented for the
spread footing (2) using two cases: the first
case dealing with the spatial variability of Es
and the second case with this spatial variability
and a geological anom-aly of soil where
assumed to be a lens of clayey soil of weak
mechanical properties under spread footing.

6.1. Taking into consideration the spatial

variability of soil modulus in foundation and
overall structure designs of continuous spread
footings

The longitudinal variation of soil properties

below the spread footings induces differential
settlement and bending moment that cannot
be predicted when assuming soil homogeneity.
In order to explain the behavior of the
continuous spread foot-ing (2) with both
foundation and overall structure designs in the
presence of the spatial variability of Es for the
considered location, Fig. 8 depicts the
bending moment along the lengths of the

spread footings for one of the 1000

simulations. For the foundation design of the
spread footing (2) the maximum value of the
bending moment is smaller than those
obtained from the overall structure design. For
the foundation design of the spread footing (2),
the high values of the bending moments, as
expected, are not located at the two ends of
this spread footing where for the overall
structure design of the spread footings (1), (2),
(4) the high values of the bending moments, as
expected, are found at their two ends. The high
values of the bending moments for the spread
footing (3) are found at its two ends and in its
middle.

In the overall structure design of the spread

footing (2) the high values of the bending
moments at its two ends are due to the

Fig. 7. Cumulative distribution function of soil modulus for

the four spread footings taking into account the spatial
variability of Es in the case of the study site.

0.74 kN m) are smaller than those ones

obtained from an overall structure design
(ranging from _3.2 to 3.6 kN m) with taking into
account the spatial variability of Es ( Fig. 8).

These high negative bending moments for the

overall structure design are found to be about
3.5 MPa which can generate theoret-ically
cracks on the upper parts of the spread
footings (for the cross sectional area: 0.5 _ 0.3
2

m ). These negative bending moments can

impose the installation of longitudinal steel
reinforcements in the upper part of the
foundation footings [27].

The 1000 results obtained for the maximum

settlement, maximum differential settlement
and maximum bending moment for each of
these two designs, are transformed in the form
of cumu-lative distribution function ( Fig. 9).

For the foundation design of this continuous

spread footing the intervals of the maximum
settlement, maximum differential set-tlement
and maximum bending moment ranging
between 1% and 99% of cumulative probability
are respectively [7.6, 8.4] mm, [0.26, 3] mm
and [0.14, 2.21] kN m. The latter intervals for
the overall structure design of this continuous
spread footing are respectively [7.3, 8.1] mm,
[0.2, 2.1] mm and [0.56, 3.86] kN m ( Fig. 9).
From these results we obtain for each design
the means (E[D], E[Dd], E[M]), variances
(Var[D], Var[Dd], Var[M]) and then the
Fig. 8. Bending moment along the spread footings of the
low weight building for both foundation and overall
structure designs in the presence of the spatial variability
of Es for one simulation along with an overall structure
design with a simple deterministic study.

influence of its orthogonal spread footings

(spread footings (1) and (3)), the spread
footing (4) and more generally to the global
structure rigidity ( Fig. 6) whereas in the
foundation design there is only the spread
footing (2) with free ends as boundary conditions ( Fig. 1).

Furthermore, an overall structure design with a

simple deterministic study (the mean values of
the Es equal to 7.5, 7.9, 8.3, 7.7 MPa ( Fig. 7)
respectively for the spread footings 1, 2, 3 and
4) was carried out. For the latter, the values of
the bending moments (ranging from _0.71 to

coefficients of variation (CV[D], CV[Dd], CV[M])

of the maxi-mum settlement (D), maximum
differential settlement (Dd) and maximum
bending moment (M) ( Tables 2 and 3).

6.2. Taking into consideration the spatial

variability of soil modulus and the presence of
a geological anomaly in foundation and overall
structure designs of continuous spread
footings

Only one geological anomaly (a lens of clayey

soil with low stiff-ness) has been encountered
during site investigation but we hypothesize
that other lenses can exist on the construction
site. The reason for taking this hypothesis is
that the soil resistivity measurement points are
distributed over uniform profiles with

218

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution function of the (a)

maximum settlement, (b) maximum differential settlement
and (c) maximum bending moment for the Vesic model

taking into account the spatial variability of Es for the

continuous spread footing (2).

mean spacing of 10 m between measurement

points and a low stiffness zones of soil such as
weak pockets or lenses of clay in a sand layer
with a length of 2 m and a depth of 24 m is
difficult to detect by geophysical and
geotechnical survey campaign. In the
following, for the same spatial variability of soil
modulus (Section 6.1) and for the continuous
spread footing (2) we consider that there is a
low stiffness zone of clayey soil. For this zone
the values of soil modulus and soil reaction
modulus are respectively equal to 1.64 MPa
and 1.5 MN m_3 with a length of 2 m under the
continuous spread footing and not detected
during digging out the soil for placing the
concrete ( Fig. 10).

Fig. 11 shows for both designs the bending

moment along the lengths of the spread
footings for the same simulation as in Fig. 8
with considering a low stiffness zone of 2 m in
the middle of spread footing (2). For this
considered simulation, for the founda-tion
design of the spread footing (2) the maximum
value of the bending moment is greater than
that one obtained from the overall structure
design at the same position of the maximum
bending moment.

The 1000 results obtained for the maximum

settlement, maximum differential settlement
and maximum bending moment for each of
foundation and overall structure designs of this
contin-uous spread footing are transformed in
the form of cumulative dis-tribution function (
Fig. 12).

For the foundation design of this continuous

spread footing the intervals of the maximum

settlement, maximum differential settlement

and maximum bending moment ranging
between 1% and 99% of cumulative probability
are respectively [11.12, 12.44] mm, [3.49, 5.42]
mm and [26.7, 28.52] kN m. The latter intervals
for the overall structure design of this
continuous spread footing are respectively
[8.8, 9.8] mm, [0.86, 2.29] mm and [17, 18.9]
kN m ( Fig. 12).

From these results we obtain for each design

the means (E[DA], - E[DdA], E[MA]), variances
(Var[DA], Var[DdA], Var[MA]) and then the
coefficients of variation (CV[DA], CV[DdA],
CV[MA]) of the maximum settlement (DA),
maximum differential settlement (DdA) and
maximum bending moment (MA) ( Tables 4
and 5).

6.3. Comparison and discussion

We compare the results presented for the

considered continu-ous spread footing in the
two previous sections (Sections 6.1 and 6.2)
in order to show the influence of the spatial
variability of soil modulus and the presence of
a geological anomaly on the estima-tions of
the maximum settlement, maximum differential
settle-ment, maximum bending moment and
their associated uncertainties.

The values of the maximum settlements and

maximum differ-ential settlements obtained for
the continuous spread footing (2) taking into
account only the spatial variability of soil
modulus, from the overall structure design are
softly smaller than those obtained from the
foundation design ( Fig. 9a and b). Their
associ-ated uncertainties quantified by the
coefficient of variation are also

Table 2

Statistical parameters of the maximum settlement, maximum differential settlement and maximum bending moment for the
foundation design of continuous spread footing (2) with taking into account the spatial variability of E s.

Statistical parameters (foundation design, 1D)

Maximum settlement (D)

Maximum differential settlement (Dd)

Maximum bending moment (M)

E[D] (mm)
8.006

E[Dd] (mm)
1.472

E[M] (kN m)
0.7540

Var[D] (mm)

0.0204

Var[Dd] (mm)

0.2692

Var[M] (kN m)
0.1827

CV[D]
0.0179

CV[Dd]
0.3524

CV[M]
0.5670

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

219

Table 3

Statistical parameters of the maximum settlement, maximum differential settlement and maximum bending moment for the overall structure design of continuous spread footing (2)
with taking into account the spatial variability of Es.

Statistical parameters (overall structure design, 3D)

Maximum settlement (D)

Maximum differential settlement (Dd)

Maximum bending moment (M)

E[D] (mm)
7.750

E[Dd] (mm)
1.094

E[M] (kN m)
1.876

Var[D] (mm)

0.0332

Var[Dd] (mm)

0.1271

Var[M] (kN m)
0.4562

CV[D]
0.0235

CV[Dd]
0.3257

CV[M]
0.3601

Fig. 11. Bending moment along the spread footings of the low weight building for both
foundation and overall structure designs in the presence of the spatial variability of E s
and a geological anomaly for one simulation.

close together ( Tables 2 and 3). In this case, a one dimensional finite
element modeling (foundation system) is sufficiently ade-quate for the
design of spread footings. It should be noted that this result is valid for
the identical charges on each of the spread footings.

Fig. 10. Schematic view of the finite element modeling of the spatial variability of soil
modulus and the presence of a geological anomaly for the continuous spread footing
(2).

However, there is a difference between the values of maximum

bending moments obtained from these both designs. The obtained
values of the maximum bending moments from 1D modeling (foundation system) are smaller than those obtained from 3D modeling
(overall structure system, Fig. 9c) and then the same interpretation for
the mean of the maximum bending moments ( Tables 2 and 3). Note
that, the values of the maximum bending moments remain low
compared to the value of the maximum elastic bending moment equal
to 37.5 kN m for such structural elements. The uncertainty of the
maximum bending moment from 1D modeling is greater than that one
obtained from 3D modeling ( Tables 2 and 3). This shows that,
although the mean value of the maximum bending moment obtained
from the overall structure design is 2.5 times greater than that one
obtained from the foundation design, the uncertainty of the maximum
bending moment for the overall structure design is less than the same
uncertainty for the geotechnical design.

For the overall structure design, all of the spread footings are affected
by almost the same spatial variability of soil modulus

Fig. 12. Cumulative distribution function of the (a) maximum settlement, (b) maximum
differential settlement and (c) maximum bending moment for the Vesic model taking
into account the spatial variability of soil modulus and a geological anomaly for the
continuous spread footing (2).

220

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

Table 4

Statistical parameters of the maximum settlement, maximum differential settlement and maximum bending moment for the foundation design of continuous spread footing (2) with
taking into account the spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a geological anomaly.

Statistical parameters (foundation design, 1D)

Maximum settlement (DA)

Maximum differential settlement (DdA)

Maximum bending moment (MA)

E[DA] (mm)
11.783
E[DdA] (mm)
4.332
E[MA] (kN m)

27.557

Var[DA] (mm)

0.0826
Var[DdA] (mm)

0.1485
2

Var[MA] (kN m)
0.1364

CV[DA]
0.0244
CV[DdA]
0.0890
CV[MA]
0.0134

Table 5

Statistical parameters of the maximum settlement, maximum differential settlement and maximum bending moment for the overall structure design of continuous spread footing (2)
with taking into account the spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a geological anomaly.

Statistical parameters (overall structure design, 3D)

Maximum settlement (DA)

Maximum differential settlement (DdA)

Maximum bending moment (MA)

E[DA] (mm)
9.281
E[DdA] (mm)
1.421
E[MA] (kN m)
17.702

Var[DA] (mm)

0.0480
Var[DdA] (mm)

0.0768
2

Var[MA] (kN m)
0.1127

CV[DA]
0.0236
CV[DdA]
0,1950
CV[MA]
0.0190

(isotropic spatial variability). The influences of continuous spread

footings (1), (3), (4) in the overall structure design, and more generally,
its global structure rigidity ( Fig. 6) are the reasons for differences
between the resulting spread footing (2) of this design and those of
foundation design.
In this case, we can conclude that the foundation design is a
significantly simplified approach compared to the overall structure
design for an estimation of bending moment when spatial variabil-ity of
soil modulus is considered.

The values of the maximum settlements, maximum differential

settlements and maximum bending moments obtained from the
foundation and overall structure designs, taking into account both the
spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a geolog-ical
anomaly, are very different from each other ( Fig. 12). The latter values
obtained from foundation design are significantly greater than those
obtained from overall structure design but their associ-ated
uncertainties obtained from the both designs are almost the same (
Tables 4 and 5). The foundation design in this case, appears more on
safety side respect to the overall structure design and the maximum
angular distortion of the spread footing (2) (1/600) remains smaller
than the limit angular distortion defined for a low weight building (1/500
[36]).

These results show that taking into consideration a geological anomaly

in addition, increases significantly, for the both founda-tion and overall
structure designs, the values of maximum settle-ments, maximum
differential settlements and maximum bending moments ( Figs. 9 and
12). It also decreases the uncertainties on the estimations of the
maximum differential settlement and max-imum bending moment
compared to those obtained when only dealing with the spatial
variability (CV[Dd], CV[M], CV[DdA], CV[MA], Tables 25).

The main aim of this study was to design the continuous spread
footings, for low weight buildings with relatively lightly loaded walls
(using the Winkler soilfoundation interaction model), from two
approaches: the first approach with a foundation design using a onedimensional finite element modeling (1D) and the second approach
with an overall structure design using a three-dimen-sional finite
element modeling (3D). These approaches were com-pared for two
different cases: the first case dealing with the spatial variability of
Youngs soil modulus (Es) and the second case with the spatial
variability of Es coupled with the presence of a geolog-ical anomaly as
a lens of clayey soil of weak mechanical properties.

In fact, in the overall structure design, the presence of a geolog-ical

anomaly leads to an anisotropic spatial variability of soil modulus on
the beneath the spread footings which leads to signif-icant impacts on
their settlements and their bending moments. This is illustrated for the
bending moment as previously presented in Fig. 11 only for one
simulation. The values of the bending moment for the spread footings
(1), (3) and (4) are between _4.3 to +5.7 kN m ( Fig. 11), which are
identical to some extent to those obtained without taking into account
the geological anomaly ( Fig. 8). However, we observe a considerably
different distribution of these values along their lengths which is due to
an effect of load redistribution in the structure [21]. The values of the
bending moment for the spread footing (2) are smaller than those
obtained from the foundation design ( Fig. 11). The load redistribution
effect

reduces the value of the bending moment to _17.4 kN m but it cannot

completely absorb it. The overall structure design in this case, appears
closer to reality than a foundation design in which the effect of this load
redistribution cannot be considered.

7. Conclusions

The values of the maximum settlements, maximum differential

settlements and their associated uncertainties obtained from the both
foundation and overall structure designs of the continuous spread
footing taking into account only the spatial variability of Es (first case)
are nearly close together. In this case, the foundation design of a
continuous spread footing is sufficiently adequate for the estimations of
the maximum settlements, maximum differen-tial settlements and their
associated uncertainties.

For the considered first case, the obtained value of the maximum
bending moment for the overall structure design is greater than the
maximum bending moment value for the founda-tion design. Then, in
this case the overall structure design of a con-tinuous spread footing is
appropriate for the estimations of the maximum bending moments and
their associated uncertainties.

Considering the spatial variability of soil modulus and a geolog-ical

anomaly as a lens of clayey soil of weak mechanical properties
(second case where a geological anomaly is presented in the mid-dle
of a spread footing) increase significantly, for both foundation and
overall structure designs, the values of maximum settlements,
maximum differential settlements and maximum bending moments but
they decrease the uncertainties on the estimations of the maximum
differential settlement and maximum bending moment. Then in this
second case, the results obtained from the overall structure design
appear the more appropriate approach compared to the foundation
design due to the load redistribution

S. Imanzadeh et al. / Engineering Structures 71 (2014) 212221

221
Chils JP, Delfiner P. Geostatistics: modeling spatial
uncertainty. Wiley series in probability and statistic.
Wiley; 1999.

effects in the structure which cannot be

considered in the founda-tion design.

Finally, the results obtained here show for

continuous spread footings, the importance of
the longitudinal behavior of these structures
when the spatial variability and a geological
anomaly of soil properties can be present. In
the case of the spatial variabil-ity of soil
properties on a construction site, the
foundation design (1D) can be performed only
in this case to estimate the settlement and
differential settlement but in the other cases,
and particularly in the case of a construction
site with a strong probability of the issue of a
geological anomaly (zone of low stiffness) the
overall structure design (3D) appears the more
appropriate approach in the design of
continuous spread footings.

References

Kumar R, Choudhury D, Bhargava K. Recent

development in modeling, analysis, and design of
foundation systems subjected to blast loading considering
uncertainties. In: Proceedings of the international
symposium on engineering under uncertainty: safety
assessment and management (ISEUSAM-2012), vol. 2.
India: Springer; 2013. p. 92738. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-81- 322-0757-3-63.

Wackernagel H. Multivariate geostatistics: an introduction

with applications. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2006.
Dubost J, Denis A, Marache A, Breysse D. Effect of
uncertainties in soil data on settlement of soft columnar
inclusions. Eng Geol 2011;121(34):12334.
Niandou H, Breysse D. Reliability analysis of a piled raft
accounting for soil horizontal variability. Comput Geotech
2007;34:7180.
Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Houy L. Longitudinal variability
of soils and structural response of sewer networks.
Comput Geotech 2004;31:62541.

Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Benzeguir H. Soil spatial

variability and structural reliability of buried networks
subjected to earthquakes. Comput Methods Appl Sci
2011;22:11127.
Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Denis A. Effect of soil spatial
variability on reliability of rigid buried pipes. Comput
Geotech 2012;43:6171.
Buco J, Emeriault F, Kastner R. Full-scale experiment
determination of concrete pipe joint behavior and its
modeling. J Infrastruct Syst 2008;14(3).
Buco J, Emeriault F, Le Gauffre P, Kastner R. Statistical
and 3D numerical identification of pipe and bedding
characteristics responsible for longitudinal behaviour of
buried pipes. In: ASCE conference pipelines 2006,
Chicago, USA.

Buco J, Emeriault F, Kastner R. 3D numerical analyses of

the soil variability impact on longitudinal behavior of
buried pipes. In: 12th IACMAG, Goa, India, 16 October;
2008. p. 382734.

Raychowdhury P, Jindal S. Shallow foundation response

variability due to parameter uncertainty. In: Proceedings
of the international symposium on engineering under
uncertainty: safety assessment and management
(ISEUSAM

Winkler E. Die lehre von der elasticitaet und festigkeit.

Prag: Dominicus; 1867.

2012), vol. 2. India: Springer; 2013. p. 11171130. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/978-81-322-0757-3-77.

Stavridis LT. Simplified analysis of layered soilstructure

interaction. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2002;128(2):22430.

Imanzadeh S. Effects of uncertainties and spatial variation

of soil and structure properties on geotechnical design.
Cases of continuous spread footings and buried pipes.
PhD dissertation, Universit de Bordeaux, vol. 1, Talence,
France; 2013.

Avramidis IE, Morfidis K. Bending of beams on threeparameter elastic foundation. Int J Sol Struct
2006;43(2):35775.

Nethercot DA. Design of building structures to improve

their resistance to progressive collapse. In: The twelfth
East AsiaPacific conference on structural engineering
and construction, vol. 14; 2011. p. 113.

Vlassov VZ, Leontiev NN. Beams, plates, and shells on

elastic foundations. Translated from Russian, Israel
Program for Scientific Translations. Jerusalem; 1966.
Kerr AD. A study of a new foundation model. Acta Mech
1965;I(2):13547.

Hetenyi M. Beams on elastic foundations. Scientific

series XVI. Chicago: The University of Michigan Press;
1946.
Houy L, Breysse D, Denis A. Influence of soil
heterogeneity on load redistribution and settlement of a
hyperstatic three-support frame. Geotechnique
2005;55(2):16370.
Sadrekarimi J, Akbarzad M. Comparative study of
methods of determination of coefficient of subgrade
reaction. Electr J Geotech Eng 2009:14.
Imanzadeh S, Denis A, Marache A. Simplified
uncertainties analysis of buried steel pipes on elastic
foundation in the presence of low stiffness zones.
Comput Geotech 2013;48:6271.
Imanzadeh S, Denis A, Marache A. Estimation de la
variabilit du module de raction pour ltude du
comportement des semelles filantes sur sol lastique.
29mes rencontres universitaires de Gnie Civil AUGC,
Tlemcen, Algrie; 2011. p. 14554.

Vesic AB. Beams on elastic subgrade and Winklers

hypothesis. In: Proc 5th international conference on soil
mechanic and foundation engineering; 1961. p. 84550.
Cassidy MJ, Uzielli M, Tian Y. Probabilistic combined
loading failure envelopes of a strip footing on spatially
variable soil. Comput Geotech 2013;49:191205.
Denis A, Elachachi SM, Niandou H. Effects of longitudinal
variability of soil on a continuous spread footing. Eng
Geol 2011;122(34):17990.
Verpaux P, Charras T, Millard A. Castem 2000: une
approche moderne du calcul des structures. In: Fouet J,

Ladevze P, Ohayon R, editors. Calculs de structures et

intelligence artificielle, (Pluralis); 1988.
Oskooi B, Pedersen LB. Comparison between VLF and
RMT methods. A combined tool for mapping conductivity
changes in the sedimentary cover. J Appl Geophys
2005;57:22741.
Denis A, Marache A, Obllianne T, Breysse D. Electrical
resistivity borehole measurements: application to an
urban tunnel site. J Appl Geophys 2002;50(3):6981.
Cassan M. Les essais in situ en mcanique de sol. Tome
II, Editions Eyrolles, Paris; 1978.
Monnet J, Ploto P. Mthodes de reconnaissance croises
pour lanalyse de stabilit des digues soumises rosion
interne. Stud Geotech Mech 2008;1 2:2130.
Chentsov NN. Lvy Brownian motion for several
parameters and generalized white noise. Theory Probab
Appl 1957;2:2656.
Matrn B. Spatial variation-stochastic models and their
application to some problems in forest surveys and other
sampling investigations. In: Meddelanden fran statens
skogsforskningsintitut, Almaenna foerlaget, Stockholm.
Berlin (Heidelberg): Springer; 1986 [1987; 49(5)].

Matheron G. The intrinsic random functions and their

applications. Adv Appl Probab 1973;5:43968.
Bjerrum L. Discussion on proceedings of the European
conference of soils mechanics and foundations
engineering. Norwegian Geotech Inst. Publ., vol. 3. No.
98, Oslo, Norway; 1963. p. 13.