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

article info
Article history:
Received 27 June 2013
Revised 21 February 2014
Accepted 8 April 2014
Available online 4 May 2014
Keywords:
Continuous spread footing Differential settlement
Foundation and overall structure designs Geological anomaly
Low stiffness zone Spatial variability Finite element
method
Soilfoundation interaction Geostatistics

cavitie
s
or
bould
ers in
1. Introduction
soils.
The
Soil
exhibits
spatialprese
heterogeneities resulting from thence of
history of its deposition andthese
aggregation processes, which occurunfav
in differ-ent physical and chemicalorable
environments. This inherent or naturalmateri
variability can be also accompanied als
by a geological anomaly. A geological could
anomaly is any inclusion that is of lead
different properties from that normallyto
expected in a design soil profile. Thisunsati
anomaly may include weak pocketssfacto
or lenses of clay in a sand layer,ry

abstrac
t
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.

foundation and overalldestruction. Kumar

structure performance.
et al. studied the
sources of these
The natural variabilitynatural variability
accompanied
by
aand the
geological anomaly can
be very important in the
case
of
superficial
geotechnical
works Corresponding
author. Tel.: +33 5
inducing
differential
40 00 88 27; fax:
settlements, which can
+33 5 40 00 31 13.
have
harmful
conseE-mail addresses:
quences on the structure.
s.imanzadeh@i2m.
For example in low weight
u-bordeaux1.fr (S.
Imanzadeh), alain.
buildings with continuous
spread footings, damage denis@u-bordeaux.fr
can range from sticking
doors and hairline plaster(A. Denis),
antoine.marache@ucracks
to
completebordeaux.fr (A.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All

rights reserved.
Marache).

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
x
.
d
o
i
.
o
r
g
/
1

0.1016/j.engs
truct.2014.04.
019 01410296/ 2014
Elsevier Ltd.
All rights
reserved.

prese
nce of
a
geolo
gical
anom
aly in
found
ation
design
param
eters
[1].
Raych
owdhu
ry et
al.
studie
d the
shallo
w
found

ation response variabilitydesigned on the

due
to
parameterbasis
of
the
deterministic
uncertainty [2].
approaches where
In foundation design, a
natural variability of
low weight building is
soil and uncertainty
simply modeled with a
related to imperfect
one-dimensional modeling
knowledge of the
of a continuous spread
presence
of
a
footing with a loading [3].geological anomaly
However,
in
overallof soil, in their
structure design, this lowlongitudinal
weight
building
isdirections are usumodeled with a two orally not considered.
three
dimensionalThese effects and
soilshallow
modeling of its continuousthe
spread footings along with foundation
along
building elements such asinteraction
longitudinal
columns, beams, wallsthe
direction
of
and slabs [4].
continuous spread
In these conventionalfootings need to be
designs and dimensioningtaken into account
computations, continuousand studied
in
spread footings are often

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

where ks is the coefficient of

are compared for two cases: the first case, taking subgrade reaction, w(x) is the
into account the spatial variability of soil modulus deflec-tion, b is a width of the
(Es) and the second case, taking into consideration foundation and p(x) is the reactive
of the
foundation.
the spatial variability of soil modulus accompa-nied pressure
by the presence of a geological anomaly as a lens Winklers idealization considers the
of clayey soil of weak mechanical properties. soil as being a system of identical
Through these both approaches and cases, thebut mutually independent, closely
soilshallow foundation interaction along the longi- spaced, dis-crete, linearly elastic
tudinal direction of continuous spread footings issprings.
According
to
this
then studied in order to better understand the idealization,
defor-mation
of
influence of the spatial variability of Es and afoundation due to applied load is
geological anomaly on the maximum settlement,confined to loaded regions only.
max-imum differential settlement and maximumFurthermore this model cannot
transmit the shear stresses which
bending moment.
In order to achieve this goal, geological are derived from the lack of spring
conditions of the studied construction site and coupling
[16,17]. Vlassov and
available data from the geophysical and geoLeontiev
[18], recognizing the
technical investigations are presented. Thereafter,
the appropriate geostatistical methods (collocateddifficulty to determine values of ks
ordinary cokriging and condi-tional simulations for soils, postulated a two[5,6]) are used to model the spatial variability of parameter model. The continuity in
Youngs soil modulus (Es) on a construction site.this model is characterized by the
This spatial var-iability are then used through the consideration of the shear layer.
finite element modeling of the Winkler soil Kerr
[19] attempted to make
foundation interaction model in the longitudinal Winklers model more realistic by
some
forms
of
direction
[714] along with and without the assuming
presence of a geolog-ical anomaly for bothinteraction among the spring
geotechnical and structural designs of continuouselements that represent the soil
spread footings. From these numerical models, the continuum even though it requires
maximum settlements, maximum differentialmore parameters (three-parameter
settlements, maximum bending moments and their mathematical model).
Winklers model, due to its
uncertainties are obtained in order to perform a
statistical analysis that describes the longitu-dinal simplicity, has been extensively
behavior of continuous spread footings in 1D andused to solve many soil
3D models. Finally, a comparison between thefoundation interaction problems
obtained results from founda-tion and overall and has given satisfactory results
structure designs is done to study firstly, the influ- for many practical problems.
ence of the spatial variability of soil modulus and Furthersecondly, the influence of this spatial variability
coupled with the presence of a geological anomaly
on the behavior of continuous spread footings.

213

more, this model seems, from a

practical point of view, to be
appropriate
for
lightweight
structures such as a low weight
building.
The
differential
governing the deflection,
homogeneous elastic
beam with constant
stiffness resting on
model and subjected to
continuous load, q(x),
written as [20]:

Ec I

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 elements. In the case of
a continuous spread footing and particularly when
a differential set-tlement 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

d4wx
4

ks b wx qx

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 semiempirical 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
footings, is considered in this study
in order to obtain a value of the soil
reaction modulus (Eq. (3)).
3

0:65 : 12 12Esb

ks

2. Soilshallow foundation interaction model

equation
w(x), of a
bending
bending
Winklers
a vertical
can be

Es

3
1

Ec h

m2

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.
Soil reaction modulus (ks) is not
an intrinsic parameter of soil. The
calculation of this modulus is a
function of soil parameters (E s,
ms), the parameters related to the
geometry of the continuous spread
footing (b, h) and a mechanical
property of the continuous spread
footing (Ec) (Eq. (3)).
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 (E s) and thestudied by Cassidy et al. [26]. The
Poisson ratio (ms) of soil, cannot ensure that the finite element method has been
very same settlements which have been assumedlargely used in numerous studies
for the subgrade system will be developed also on to
model
the
soilstructure
the soil surface.
interaction: Denis et al. studied
When the structure rigidity is significant, using soilshallow
foundation
the Winkler model is valid. This has been pointed
interactions [27], Dubost et al. [7]
out earlier in the well known study carried out by
Stavridis et al. for the two dimensional analy-sis of and Niandou et al. [8] analyzed
soilpile interaction, Elachachi et
the concrete tunnel frame [16].
al. [911], Buco et al. [1214]
studied
soilburied
pipe
interactions.
In this section the finite element
models for foundation and overall
The influence of the soil spatial variability on a structure designs of the considered
spread footing, using a finite element model, was continuous spread foot-ings in this
3. Finite element models for foundation and
overall structure designs of continuous spread
footings

study are presented. We take a

low weight building with four
continuous spread footings with
lengths of 10 m and 6 m along with
concrete columns (cross section:
2
20 20 cm ), beams (cross section:
2
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

reconnaissance
buildings: a width of 0.5 m and a height The
(6
auger
of 0.3 m. Youngs modulus of the soundings
foundation (Ec) and Poissons ratio ofboreholes to a depth of 8
and
twelve
soil are respectively equal to 20 GPa m)
and 0.3 with a uniform loading of 30 kNpressuremeter tests (depth
of
boreholes
ranging
per running meter.
between 1 and 7 m)
the
surface
In foundation design (1D), this low enabled
weight building is modeled with aformations detected using
continuous spread footing (for examplethe VLF-R technique to be
for a spread footing of 6 m) as a beamconfirmed (
Fig. 3).
resting on an elastic soil with a uniform Deformation
modulus
loading of 30 kN per running meter as
(EPMT) and limit pressures
illustrated in Fig. 1. Finite element
(PL) are obtained for each
modeling of this spread footing has 12sounding
from
the
elements and 13 nodes.
pressuremeter test. The
However, in overall structure design pressuremeter soundings
(3D), this low weight building ismade to a maximum depth
modeled with four continuous spreadof 12 m, including a test
footings along with concrete columns, measurement every meter,
beams and floor slab in order to make it confirmed
the
sandyclose to reality. Finite element modeling clayey character of the soil
of these spread footings has 64 with, for some soundings,
the presence of sand,
elements and 64 nodes ( Fig. 2).
which
occurs
as
The computations are performed
embedded lenses rather
with the CASTEM software [28] usingthan continuous seams or
layers at depths greater
the Winkler model.
In the following the geological than 7 m. Pressuremeter
allows
the
conditions of the studied construction sounding
site and available data from the detection of a lens of
geophysical
and
geotechnicalclayey soil of weak
mechanical properties at
investigations are briefly presented.
the depth of 2 4 m. The
average values found for
4. Presentation of the studied site and the limit pressure and the
available data
The study site with a surface area of
2

25,000 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 RFig. 1. Schematic view of the
(Resistivity) mode VLF (Very Lowfinite element modeling for
foundation design of spread
Frequency) technique can provide an
footing of 6 m with free ends as
interesting alternative to conventionalboundary
conditions
(one
methods such as the direct currentdimensional model (1D)).
electrical method
[29,30]. The
measurement points of soil resistivity
obtained from this technique are distributed 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).

Fig. 2. Schematic view of the

finite element modeling for
overall structure design of
spread
footings
(a
three
dimensional model (3D)).

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 sandyclayey 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.
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 construction 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

tify directions of anisotropy

anal-ysis and the two consideredvariogram c(h) is defined
if such anisotropy exists.
geostatistical methods together with theby:
The
experimental
application of these methods using real
variogram
is
not
sufficient
data in order to model the spatial
ch 1Nh Zxi h Zxfor
a
geostatistical
X
variability of soil modulus. This modulus
estimation or simulation
can be assessed from pressuremeter
and
an
analytical
modulus, using common relation: EPMT
where Z(x) denotes the
mathematical function has
= a
Es where a is structural or
target variable measured
to be fitted to the
rheological coefficient [31].
at location x and N(h)
experimental
variogram:
corresponds to the number
the variogram model. A
5.1. Variographical analysis
of
pairs
of
points
variogram model is usually
defined
by
some
Most geostatistical methods rely onseparated by a distance of
parameters: the type of
a variogram model, which quantifies the h.
During
the
basic mathematical model,
spatial structure of the target parameter
[5]. Firstly, the experimental variogram variographical analysis, it
its sill and its range for a
must be calculated. It describes howis important to compute
stationary model. Usually,
experimental
the spatial variability between data the
the variability between
in
various
values evolves with the dis-tancevariogram
points increases
between the data. The experimentaldirections in order to iden2Nh

i1

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

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

3.71

3.21

5.1

3.55

4.41

6.5

3.88

4.38

4.46

3.58

3.65

4.19

P L (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

E PMT

5.08

5.02

6.38

7.1

5.44

6.19

5.62

5.03

5.06

5.11

8.11

PMT

(MPa)

to be estimated, Z (x0)
is the estimated value
of the main variable at
x0, w0 is the
and becomes stabilized at a given variogram point
weight assigned to the
value called the sill. The range (or correlation value of the auxiliary
variable (S) at point x0,
length) is the distance at which the variograma
is
an
index
numbering the samples
reaches the sill value. The variogram will be used from 1 to n, Z(x ) are
a
for the geostatistical estimation and conditionalthe values of the main
variable
at
point
xa,
simulations that are explained in the ensuing
S(xa) are the values of
sections.
the auxiliary variable at
a
point xa, w z are the
weights assigned to the
values of the main
5.2. Multivariate geostatistical estimation
variable
(Z) at point x a
a
(collocated cokriging)
and w s are the weights
assigned to the values
of the auxiliary variable
When we have a variable of interest or main at point xa.

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]):

n

Zx0 w0 Sx0 wza Zxa wsa Sxa

a 1

X
where x0 is the point where the main variable (Z) is

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.
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 isNevertheless,

assumed that deformation modulus is indirectlybecause the small
of
soil
linked to soil resistivity derived from geophysical number
modulus values, this
methods [3,27,32]. A linear relationship with abivariate model is
correlation of 0.6 was obtained between the tedious to establish.
deformation modulus and resistivity values.
For this reason, a
The dataset in this study is constituted of a bundled version of the
few set of pressure-meter boreholes with thecollocated cokriging is
deformation modulus EPMT values (12 data ofused which takes into
only
the
interest) and a lot of soil resistivity values (272account
variogram model of
auxiliary data) [27]. For the collocated cokrigingthe auxiliary variable
a bivariate variogram model is required.

(soil resistivity) with

the
circular
neighborhood equal
to 50 m, along with an
exponential
component
model
with a sill equal to 85
2

(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

mesh of 0.5 0.5 m

which is also represented by a red line obtain more values of

to

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

85: 1

exp 3h

h : lag m

37

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 illustrates 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 with a

Fig. 5. Collocated
ordinary cokriging
estimate for soil
modulus.

Es beneath a structure.
Starting from estimation
2
results on a 10 10 m
mesh (Section 5.2) and
computing new results on
2
a 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.geometrical dimensions of

these spread footings are
The soil parameters, the load, concrete
identical
to
those
columns, beams, floor slab, the
previously presented in
mechanical
property
and
the
this paper (see Section

3). For this location of

spread footings, the values
of Youngs soil modulus
are obtained at each node
of a

(black line) and modeled (red line) isotropic

variograms of the
soil resistivity. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the

Fig. 4.
Experimental

Fig. 6. Four spread footings of a

low weight building with lengths of 10 m and
6m
reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)

on the construction site.

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

design of the spread

grid (every 0.5 m) from the 1000 footing (2), the high values
conditional simulations results. Fromof the bending moments,
these values of Es, the values ofas expected, are not
located at the two ends of
subgrade reaction modulus (ks) for thethis spread footing where
Vesic model are obtained by Eq. (3),for the overall structure
representing 64,000 values of ks. Thesedesign of the spread
values of subgrade reaction modulusfootings (1), (2), (4) the
are then introduced in the finite elementhigh values of the bending
model to obtain the max-imummoments, as expected,
settlement,
maximum
differentialare found at their two
settlement and maximum bendingends. The high values of
moment for each spread footing of thethe bending moments for
building for each simulation. Then thethe spread footing (3) are
1000 results for the maximumfound at its two ends and
settlement,
maximum
differentialin its middle.
settlement and maximum bending In the overall structure
moment for each continuous spread design of the spread
footing can be transformed in the formfooting (2) the high values
of cumulative distribution function.
of the bending moments at
its two ends are due to the
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.

Fig. 7. Cumulative distribution

function of soil modulus for the
four spread footings taking into
consideration theaccount the spatial variability of
of soil modulus inEs in the case of the study site.

6.1. Taking into

spatial variability
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

217

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 condi-tions ( 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 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 (forof this continuous spread

2
the cross sectional area: 0.5 0.3 m ).footing are respectively
These negative bending moments can [7.3, 8.1] mm, [0.2, 2.1]
impose the installation of longitudinalmm and [0.56, 3.86] kN m
steel reinforcements in the upper part of( Fig. 9). From these
the foundation footings [27].
results we obtain for each
The 1000 results obtained for the design the means (E[D],
maximum
settlement,
maximumE[Dd], E[M]), variances
differential settlement and maximum(Var[D], Var[D ], Var[M])
d
bending moment for each of these twoand then the coefficients of
designs, are transformed in the form of
variation (CV[D], CV[Dd],
cumu-lative distribution function ( Fig.CV[M]) of the maxi-mum
settlement (D), maximum
9).
For the foundation design of thisdifferential settlement (Dd)
continuous spread footing the intervalsand maximum bending
of the maximum settlement, maximum
moment (M) ( Tables 2
differential set-tlement and maximum
and 3).
bending moment ranging between 1%
and 99% of cumulative probability are
respectively [7.6, 8.4] mm, [0.26, 3] mm
Taking
into
and [0.14, 2.21] kN m. The latter 6.2.
intervals for the overall structure design 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

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
3
1.64 MPa and 1.5 MN m
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
Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution function of the (a)settlement,
maximum
maximum settlement, (b) maximum differential
differential settlement and
settlement and (c) maximum bending moment
bending
for the Vesic model taking into account the maximum
for each of
spatial variability of Es for the continuous spreadmoment
footing (2).
foundation and overall
structure designs of this
contin-uous spread footing
are transformed in the
form of cumulative distribution 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-atedcoefficient of variation are

uncertainties
quantified
by
thealso
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 Es.
Statistical parameters
(foundation design, 1D)

Maximum differential settlement (Dd)

Maximum settlement (D)

E[D] (mm)
2
Var[D] (mm)

8.006
0.0204

CV[D]

0.0179

Maximum bending moment (M)

E[Dd] (mm)
2
Var[Dd] (mm)

1.472
0.2692

E[M] (kN m)
2
Var[M] (kN m)

0.7540
0.1827

CV[Dd]

0.3524

CV[M]

0.5670

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

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 differential settlement (Dd)

Maximum settlement (D)

Maximum bending moment (M)

E[D] (mm)
2
Var[D] (mm)

7.750
0.0332

E[Dd] (mm)
2
Var[Dd] (mm)

1.094
0.1271

E[M] (kN m)
2
Var[M] (kN m)

1.876
0.4562

CV[D]

0.0235

CV[Dd]

0.3257

CV[M]

0.3601

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
Fig. 10. Schematic view of the finite element modeling of the moment equal to 37.5
spatial variability of soil modulus and the presence of a
kN
m
for
such
geological anomaly for the continuous spread footing (2).
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
Fig. 11. Bending moment along the spread footings of the
from the foundation
low weight building for both foundation and overall structure
the
designs in the presence of the spatial variability of E s and adesign,
uncertainty of the
geological anomaly for one simulation.
maximum
bending
moment
for
the
structure
close together ( Tables 2 and 3). In this case, a overall
one dimensional finite element modelingdesign is less than
(foundation system) is sufficiently ade-quate forthe same uncertainty
the design of spread footings. It should be notedfor the geotechnical
that this result is valid for the identical charges on design.
For the overall
each of the spread footings.
structure design, all of
However, there is a difference between thethe spread footings
values of maximum bending moments obtained are affected by almost
same
spatial
from these both designs. The obtained values ofthe
of
soil
the maximum bending moments from 1Dvariability
modeling (foun-dation system) are smaller than modulus
those obtained from 3D modeling (overall

maximum bending moment

for the Vesic model taking
Fig. 12. Cumulative distribution function of the (a) maximuminto account the spatial
settlement, (b) maximum differential settlement and (c) 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)
2
Var[DA] (mm)

11.783
0.0826

E[DdA] (mm)
2
Var[DdA] (mm)

4.332
0.1485

E[MA] (kN m)
2
Var[MA] (kN m)

27.557
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)
2
Var[DA] (mm)

9.281
0.0480

E[DdA] (mm)
2
Var[DdA] (mm)

1.421
0.0768

E[MA] (kN m)
2
Var[MA] (kN m)

17.702
0.1127

CV[DA]

0.0236

CV[DdA]

0,1950

CV[MA]

0.0190

reduces the value of the bending

(isotropic spatial variability). The influences of continuous spread footings moment to 17.4 kN m but it
(1), (3), (4) in the overall structure design, and more generally, its global cannot completely absorb it. The
structure rigidity ( Fig. 6) are the reasons for differences between the overall structure design in this
case, appears closer to reality
resulting spread footing (2) of this design and those of foundation design.
than a foundation design in which
In this case, we can conclude that the foundation design is a
the
effect
of
this
load
significantly simplified approach compared to the overall structure design
redistribution
cannot
be
for an estimation of bending moment when spatial variabil-ity of soil
considered.
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 7. Conclusions
anomaly, are very different from each other ( Fig. 12). The latter values The main aim of this study
obtained from foundation design are significantly greater than those was to design the continuous
obtained from overall structure design but their associ-ated uncertaintiesspread footings, for low weight
buildings with relatively lightly
obtained from the both designs are almost the same ( Tables 4 and 5).
loaded walls (using the Winkler
The foundation design in this case, appears more on safety side respect
soilfoundation
interaction
to the overall structure design and the maximum angular distortion of the model), from two approaches: the
spread footing (2) (1/600) remains smaller than the limit angular first approach with a foundation
design using a one-dimensional
distortion defined for a low weight building (1/500 [36]).
finite element modeling (1D) and
These results show that taking into consideration a geological
the second approach with an
anomaly in addition, increases significantly, for the both founda-tion and
overall structure design using a
overall structure designs, the values of maximum settle-ments, maximum
three-dimen-sional finite element
differential settlements and maximum bending moments ( Figs. 9 andmodeling (3D). These approaches
12). It also decreases the uncertainties on the estimations of the were com-pared for two different
maximum differential settlement and max-imum bending momentcases: the first case dealing with
compared to those obtained when only dealing with the spatial variability the spatial variability of Youngs
(CV[Dd], CV[M], CV[DdA], CV[MA], Tables 25).

soil modulus (Es) and the second

case with the spatial variability of

In fact, in the overall structure design, the presence of a geolog-icalEs coupled with the presence of a
anomaly leads to an anisotropic spatial variability of soil modulus on thegeolog-ical anomaly as a lens of
beneath the spread footings which leads to signif-icant impacts on their clayey soil of weak mechanical
settlements and their bending moments. This is illustrated for the bendingproperties.
The values of the maximum
moment as previously presented in Fig. 11 only for one simulation. The
settlements, maximum differential
values of the bending moment for the spread footings (1), (3) and (4) are
settlements and their associated
between 4.3 to +5.7 kN m ( Fig. 11), which are identical to some extent to
uncertainties obtained from the
those obtained without taking into account the geological anomaly ( Fig.
both foundation and overall
8). However, we observe a considerably different distribution of these
structure
designs
of
the
values along their lengths which is due to an effect of load redistribution
continuous spread footing taking
in the structure [21]. The values of the bending moment for the spread into account only the spatial
footing (2) are smaller than those obtained from the foundation design (
variability of Es (first case) are
Fig. 11). The load redistribution effect
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 differential
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

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

Springer; 2013. p. 92738. doi:

322-0757-3-63.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-81-

[2]

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
2012), vol. 2. India: Springer; 2013. p. 11171130. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/978-81-322-0757-3-77.

[3]

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.

[4]

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.
Chils JP, Delfiner P. Geostatistics: modeling spatial

uncertainty. Wiley series in probability and statistic. Wiley; 1999.

Wackernagel H. Multivariate geostatistics: an introduction

with applications. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2006.

[7]

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.

[8]

Niandou H, Breysse D. Reliability analysis of a piled raft

accounting for soil

2007;34:7180.

[9]

horizontal variability. Comput Geotech

Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Houy L. Longitudinal variability

of soils and structural

response of sewer networks. Comput
Geotech 2004;31:62541.

[10]

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.

[11]

Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Denis A. Effect of soil spatial

variability on reliability
2012;43:6171.

[12]

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.

[14]

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.

[15]

Winkler E. Die lehre von der

elasticitaet und festigkeit. Prag: Dominicus;
1867.

[16]

Stavridis LT. Simplified analysis of

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

[17]

Avramidis IE, Morfidis K. Bending of

beams
on
three-parameter
elastic
foundation. Int J Sol Struct 2006;43(2):357
75.

[18]

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.

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:

[6]

[13]

[19]

[1]

[5]

221

of rigid buried pipes. Comput Geotech

Buco J, Emeriault F, Kastner R. Full-scale experiment

determination of concrete pipe joint behavior and its modeling. J

Infrastruct Syst 2008;14(3).

[20]

Hetenyi M. Beams on elastic

foundations. Scientific series XVI. Chicago:
The University of Michigan Press; 1946.

[21]

Houy L, Breysse D, Denis A.

Influence of soil heterogeneity on load
redistribution and settlement of a hyperstatic
three-support
frame.
2005;55(2):16370.

[22]

Sadrekarimi
Comparative
study

Geotechnique
J,
of

Akbarzad
methods

M.
of

determination of
coefficient of subgrade
reaction. Electr J Geotech Eng 2009:14.

[23]

Imanzadeh S, Denis A, Marache A.

Simplified uncertainties analysis of buried
steel pipes on elastic foundation in the
presence of low stiffness zones.
Geotech 2013;48:6271.

Comput

[24]

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.

[25]

Vesic AB. Beams on elastic subgrade

and Winklers hypothesis. In: Proc 5th
international conference on soil mechanic
and foundation engineering; 1961. p. 845
50.

[26]

Cassidy MJ, Uzielli M, Tian Y.

Probabilistic combined loading
failure
envelopes of a strip footing on spatially
variable soil. Comput Geotech 2013;49:191
205.

[27]

Denis A, Elachachi SM, Niandou H.

Effects of longitudinal variability of soil on a
continuous spread footing. Eng Geol
2011;122(34):17990.

[28]

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.

[29]

Oskooi B, Pedersen LB. Comparison

between VLF and RMT methods. A
combined tool for mapping conductivity
changes in the sedimentary cover. J
Geophys 2005;57:22741.

[30]

Appl

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.

[31]

Cassan M. Les essais in situ en mcanique de sol. Tome II,

Editions Eyrolles, Paris; 1978.

[32]

Monnet J, Ploto P. Mthodes de reconnaissance croises

pour lanalyse de stabilit des digues soumises rosion interne.

Stud Geotech Mech 2008;1 2:2130.

[33]

Chentsov

NN. Lvy Brownian motion for several

parameters and generalized white noise.

Theory Probab Appl 1957;2:2656.

[34]

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)].

[35]

Matheron G. The intrinsic random

functions and their applications. Adv Appl
Probab 1973;5:43968.

[36]

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.