BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION OF STRIP

FOOTING ON TWO - LAYERED COHESIVE SOIL

FOR DIFFERENT C1/C2 RATIOS USING ABAQUS

A Project Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for the Award of Degree
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
K. SAIKIRAN (15091A01A5)
S. VISHNU (15091A01E8)
P. S. VINAY (15091A01E6)
N. SIVA SANKAR BABU (15091A01B3)

Under the Esteemed Guidance of

Mr. C. KRISHNAMA RAJU M.E.(GeoTech)
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering

School of Civil Engineering

R. G. M. College of Engineering and Technology
(Autonomous),
Nandyal 518 501, A. P., INDIA
(Affiliated to J. N. T. University Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu, A. P., INDIA)
(Approved by AICTE, Accredited by N.B.A, NewDelhi, NAAC-A+ Grade)

2015 - 2019
 R. G. M. College of Engineering and Technology
(Autonomous),
Nandyal 518 501, A. P., INDIA
(Affiliated to J. N. T. University Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu, A. P., INDIA)
(Approved by AICTE, Accredited by N.B.A, NewDelhi, NAAC-A+ Grade)

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Project Report entitled ”BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION
OF STRIP FOOTING ON TWO - LAYERED COHESIVE SOIL FOR DIFFERENT C1 /C2
RATIOS USING ABAQUS” submitted by

K. SAIKIRAN (15091A01A5)
S. VISHNU (15091A01E8)
P. S. VINAY (15091A01E6)
N. SIVA SANKAR BABU (15091A01B3)

in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of B.Tech in Civil Engineering to the
RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECH-
NOLOGY,(AUTONOMOUS) Nandyal (Affiliated to J.N.T. University Anantapuramu,
Anantapuramu, A. P., INDIA) is a bonafide record of confide work carried out by them under
our supervision. The results embodied in this project report have not been submitted to any
other university or institute for the award of any Degree.

Signature of Guide Signature of HSCE

Mr. C. KRISHNAMA RAJUM.E.(GeoT ech) Dr. G. SREENIVASULUP h.D(IISC)
Associate Professor Professor and HOD
RGMCET, NANDYAL RGMCET, NANDYAL

Examiner:
Date:

i
Dedicated to my beloved parents and teachers who have worked hard throughout my education.

ii
 Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our project guide Mr. C. KRISHNAMA
RAJU M.E. (GeoTech), for his continuous guidance, patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and affec-
tion throughout the project. His guidance helped us a lot through the time of project and writing of
this report. We was indeed fortunate to have him as our guide.

We take it as a privilege to express our thanks to the Head of the Department Dr. G. SREENI-
VASULU for his continuous help and encouragement.

We are highly grateful and gratitude to Dr. T. JAYACHANDRA PRASAD , Pricipal,

R.G.M. College of Engineering and Technology, for his encouragement and inspiration at various
points of time in the successful completion of this project.

We shall remain grateful to Dr. M. SHANTHI RAMUDU, Chairman, R.G.M. College of

Engineering and Technology, who has been a constant source of inspiration throughout the course and
we also seek his blessings for a bright future.

We shall remain grateful to Sri. M. SIVARAM , M.D, Chairman, R.G.M. College of Engineer-
ing and Technology who has been a constant source of inspiration for throughout the course and we
also seek his blessings for bright future.

We express our special thanks to the officers, faculty members and non-teaching staff members of
this college who constantly cooperated in the completion of the project work.

Last but not the least, our thanks to all those who helped us in the completion of this project.

K. SAIKIRAN
S. VISHNU
P. S. VINAY
N. SIVA SANKAR BABU

iii
 Abstract
Soil naturally occurs in deposited layers. Each layer of the soil may be assumed to be homoge-
neous, although the strength properties of adjacent layers are quite different. The present study aims
mainly to investigate the behavior of strip footing under vertical central load placed on the surface
of two layered cohesive soil. The study has been carried out for the bearing capacity of strip footing
on two - layer clayey soil. Theoretical and numerical analysis have been carried out. A review of pre-
vious researches is given and a discussion is presented of the dimensionless relationships that govern
the behavior of this type of foundation. The results are presented in terms of the ultimate bearing
capacity, load - settlement curves, and non-dimensional relationships to show the effect of cohesive
strength ratios, (C1 /C2 ), of the upper layer soil to the lower layer soil.
KEYWORDS: Bearing capacity, Two - layer clayey soil, Foundation, Strip Footing.

iv
Contents

Abstract iv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Finite Element Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Historical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Interacting with ABAQUS (6.13) 8

3.1 ABAQUS/CAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 ABAQUS/VIEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 ABAQUS Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Types of Foundations 15
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4 Types of Foundation Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.1 Shallow Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.2 Deep Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5 Shallow Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.1 Isolated Spread Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.2 Wall Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5.3 Combined Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.5.4 Cantilever or Strap footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

v
 4.5.5 MAT or RAFT Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.6 Deep Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.6.1 Pile Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.6.2 Well Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5 Bearing Capacity Equations 29

5.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Meyerhof’s Bearing Capacity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.1 Meyerhof’s General Bearing Capacity Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6 Modelling and Analysis of Strip footing on one - layered and two - layered
soil 36
6.1 Calculation for one - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.2 Model creation and Analysis of Strip footing on one - layered soil . . . . . . . . 37
6.3 Results for one - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.4 Theoretical calculation for two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.5 Creating and Analyzing of two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.6 Results for two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

7 Conclusions 55

vi
List of Figures

3.1 Tools in a module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2 Tools available in property section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.1 Schematic Diagram Of Shallow And Deep Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Schematic Diagram of Pad, Stepped and Sloped Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 Schematic Diagram of Square, Rectangular and Circular Footings . . . . . . . . 21
4.4 Schematic Diagram of Wall Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.5 Schematic Diagram of Combined Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6 Schematic Diagram of Cantilever Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.7 Schematic Diagram of MAT or RAFT Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.8 Schematic Diagram of End bearing piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.9 Schematic Diagram of Friction piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.10 Schematic Diagram of Steel piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.11 Schematic Diagram of Composite pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.1 Shear stresses based on Terzaghis soil bearing capacity theory . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.2 Terzaghis bearing capacity factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3 Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6.1 Figure shows problem considered for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6.2 Figure shows that part created in ABAQUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.3 Figure shows the material density in ABAQUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4 Assigned section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.5 Figure shows the meshing of soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.6 Boundary conditions of the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.7 Failure of the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.8 Vertical deformation of the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.9 Graph showing soil displacement vs bearing capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

vii
6.10 Results from Theoretical and FEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.11 Figure showing the example problem of two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.12 Creating interaction between layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.13 Figure showing the failure of two - layered soil at integration points . . . . . . . 52
6.14 Figure showing the vertical deformation of two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.15 Bearing capacity variation with C1 /C2 ratio from FEM (ABAQUS) . . . . . . . 54
6.16 Graph showing Bearing capacity curves for two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . 54

7.1 Simply supported beam with center point load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7.2 Simply supported beam with uniform distributed load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
7.3 Fixed beam with uniform distributed load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
7.4 Cantilever beam with point load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.5 Cantilever beam with uniform distributed load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.6 Simply supported beam with point load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.7 Simply supported beam with uniform distributed load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7.8 Fixed beam with uniform distributed load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7.9 Cantilever beam with point load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.10 Cantilever beam with uniform distributed load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

viii
List of Tables

3.1 ABAQUS Consistent Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.1 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.2 Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3 Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6.1 Variation of force with displacement for one layer soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.2 Table showing the properties two - layered soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.3 Table showing the bearing capacity of both analysis for two - layered soil of
Df /d1 ratio = 1.5 and d1 /d2 = 0.122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

7.1 Deflection (m) values of beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

ix
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction
Foundation is the most important part of any structure. It has to transfer the load of whole
building and therefore it is important to properly design foundation of the building. Bearing
capacity of the soil underneath and the settlement of footing are the two major concerns in
the design. A lot of work from a long time is going on for finding the bearing capacity of soil
and the settlement of the footing. This project main aim is to evaluate the bearing capacity
of two - layered cohesive soil for different cohesive strength ratios, C1 /C2 using ABAQUS (6.13).

Foundation design consists of two distinct parts: the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil
under the foundation, and the tolerable settlement that the footing can undergo without af-
fecting the superstructure. The ultimate bearing capacity aims at determining the load that
the soil under the foundation can handle before shear failure; while, the calculation of the set-
tlement caused by the superstructure should not exceed the limits of the allowed deformation
for stability, function and aspects of construction. Research on the ultimate bearing capacity
problems can be carried out using either analytical solutions or experimental investigations.
The former could be studied through theory of plasticity or finite element analysis, while the
latter is achieved through conducting prototype, model and full-scale tests. A satisfactory so-
lution is found only when theoretical results agree with those obtained experimentally. This
report presents analysis of Bearing Capacity of strip footing on a two - layered cohesive soil
with different cohesive strength ratios, C1 /C2 .

1
1.2 Definitions
Bearing Capacity

Bearing capacity is the ability of soil to safely carry the pressure placed on the soil from any
engineered structure without undergoing a shear failure with accompanying large settlements.
Applying a bearing pressure which is safe with respect to failure does not ensure that settle-
ment of the foundation will be within acceptable limits. Therefore, settlement analysis should
generally be performed since most structures are sensitive to excessive settlement.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

The generally accepted method of bearing capacity analysis is to assume that the soil below
the foundation along a critical plane of failure (slip path) is on the verge of failure and to
calculate the bearing pressure applied by the foundation required to cause this failure condition.
This is the ultimate bearing capacity, qu .

Allowable Bearing Capacity

The allowable bearing capacity (qa ) is the maximum bearing stress that can be applied to
the foundation such that it is safe against instability due to shear failure and the maximum
tolerable settlement is not exceeded.

Factor of safety

Bearing capacity of soils are reduced by a factor called factor of Safety to underestimate the
bearing capacity of soils.

Net ultimate Bearing Capacity

It is defined as the ultimate pressure per unit area of the foundation that can be supported
by the soil in excess of the pressure caused by the surrounding soil at the foundation level, then

qnu = qu − γDf (1.1)

where,
Df = depth of footing in meters

2
Safe Bearing Capacity

It is the bearing capacity after applying the factor of safety (FS). These are of two types,
(a) Safe net bearing capacity (qns ) :
It is the net soil pressure which can be safety applied to the soil considering only shear failure.
It is given by

qnu
qns = (1.2)
FS
(b) Safe gross bearing capacity (qs ): It is the maximum gross pressure which the soil can carry
safely without shear failure. It is given by,

qs = qns + γDf (1.3)

Cohesive Soil

Cohesive soils are fine-grained materials consisting of silts, clays, and/or organic material.
These soils exhibit low to high strength when unconfined and when air-dried depending on
specific characteristics. Most cohesive soils are relatively impermeable compared with cohe-
sionless soils. Some silts may have bonding agents between particles such as soluble salts or
clay aggregates. Wetting of soluble agents bonding silt particles may cause settlement.

Cohesionless Soil

Cohesionless soil is composed of granular or coarse grained materials with visually de-
tectable particle sizes and with little cohesion or adhesion between particles. These soils have
little or no strength, particularly when dry, when unconfined and little or no cohesion when
submerged. Strength occurs from internal friction when the material is confined. Apparent
adhesion between particles in cohesionless soil may occur from capillary tension in the pore
water. Cohesionless soils are usually relatively free-draining compared with cohesive soils.

1.3 Finite Element Simulation

Both experimental and numerical studies compete each other in dealing with bearing ca-
pacity evaluation. Finite element modeling has more advantages than experimental modeling
and the parameters may be varied easily and details of stresses and deformations throughout

3
the system can be studied. This is particularly valuable for investigating the mechanisms and
the effective stresses developing in the two-layer soils system, which is extremely difficult to do
in a model test.

A two - dimensional finite element simulation for the numerical tests, using ABAQUS (6.13),
was carried out to investigate the actual behavior of the single layer and two - layer soils system,
under plane strain conditions.

4
Chapter 2

Literature Review

A literature survey on the subject shows that the majority of the bearing capacity theo-
ries involve homogeneous soils under the foundations. Soil properties were assumed to remain
constant for the bearing capacity analysis, and therefore analytical solutions, like Terzaghis
bearing capacity theory, matched with the experimental results. However, in cases where the
soil properties vary with depth, most of these theories cannot be implemented, and the analyt-
ical solutions that take into consideration the non-homogeneity of the soils are approximations,
and hence the results are inaccurate.

Layered soil profiles are often encountered whether naturally deposited or artificially made.
Within each layer, the soil may be considered as homogeneous. The ultimate load failure sur-
face in the soil depends on the shear strength parameters of the soil layers such as, the thickness
of the upper layer, the shape, size and embedment of footing, and the ratio of the thickness of
the upper layer to the width of the footing. Therefore, it is important to determine the soil
profile and to calculate the bearing capacity accordingly.

In recent years, approximate solutions for the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
layered soil have been presented for a number of commonly encountered non-homogeneous soil
profiles. Two cases of layered soil profiles have been considered: a strong layer overlying a weak
layer, and vice versa.

In the literature, over the last four decades, several reports can be found dealing with the
problem of foundations resting on layered soils. At first, researchers based their studies on the
results of prototype laboratory model testing in order to develop empirical formulae to predict

5
the ultimate bearing capacity of these footings. Recently, theories based on finite element and
numerical analyses were presented that gave more rational solutions as compared to the previ-
ous ones.

2.1 Historical Review

Bearing capacity of strip footings on two-layer soil has received much attention in the liter-
ature. Terzaghi and Peck (1948) first applied the concept of load spreading to analyze a strip
footing on sand overlying clay. This was followed by many other researchers. The methods can
be classified into four major groups: limit equilibrium method (Button, 1953; Reddy and Srini-
vasan, 1967; Meyerhof, 1974), limit analysis approach (Chen and Davidson, 1973; Florkiewicz,
1989; Michalowski and Shi, 1995; Merifield, et al., 1999; Michalowski, 2002; Shiau, et al., 2003),
semiempirical approach (Brown and Meyerhof, 1969; Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978; Hanna and
Meyerhof, 1980), and finite element method (Griffiths, 1982; Burd and Frydman, 1997).

From the journal, Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Two-layer Clay Soil by Finite El-
ement Method, Ming Zhu, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, the final remarks are as follows:
Parametric study was carried out to evaluate the bearing capacity of a strip footing over two-
layer clay soil. Finite element solutions for different combinations of layer thickness and soil
strength are presented in both tabular and graphical forms. At the same strength ratio, the
bearing capacity factor decreases as thickness of the top layer increases for a soft-over-strong
clay profile, whereas an inverse trend for a strong-over-soft clay profile. There exists a critical
depth where the shear strength of the bottom layer does not affect the bearing capacity and
failure mechanism is restricted only in the top layer. Different failure mechanisms and displace-
ment fields are observed for strong-over-soft clay profile and soft-over-strong clay profile. A
comparison of the finite element solutions with published limit analysis solutions shows a good
agreement.

From the journal, Bearing Capacity Evaluation of Footing on a LayeredSoil using ABAQUS
Mosadegh A and Nikraz H Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University, Australia, the
conclusions are as follows:
Finite element method (FEM) is applied to calculate bearing capacity of a strip footing on one-

6
layer and two-layer soil.To investigate the effect of various parameters on soil failure mechanism
under the footing a commercial finite element software, ABAQUS, has been used. Soil profile
contains two soil types including sand and clay. Soil behaviour is represented by the elasto-
plastic Drucker-Prager model and footing material is assumed isotropic and linear elastic. For
a homogenous soil profile, the effect of soil properties such as dilation angle, initial condition
and footing roughness on soil failure mechanism under the footing are assessed. For a one-layer
case, the bearing capacity also is calculated which has a good agreement with Terzaghis equa-
tion. For a layered soil, soft-overstrong soil, the effect of layer thickness, soil shear strength and
material property on bearing capacity value and failure mechanism of footing is investigated. It
is concluded that the bearing capacity of footing decreases as the height of clayey soil increases
whilst the displacement under footing increases. There is a critical depth where the stronger
bottom layer does not affect ultimate bearing capacity and failure mechanism of footing.

This project focuses on the application of finite element method. A study was carried out
to evaluate the ultimate bearing capacity of a rough strip footing resting on two-layer clay soil.
Computations were performed by the commercial finite element analysis software ABAQUS
(Version 6.13). The computational results are presented and compared with theoretical solu-
tions.

7
Chapter 3

Interacting with ABAQUS (6.13)

3.1 ABAQUS/CAE
Abaqus/CAE is a complete Abaqus environment that provides a simple, consistent inter-
face for creating, submitting, monitoring and evaluating results from Abaqus/Standardand
Abaqus/Explicit simulations. Abaqus/CAE is divided into modules, where each module de-
fines a logical aspect of the modeling process; for example, defining the geometry, defining
material properties, and generating a mesh. Going from module to module, model is build
from which Abaqus/CAE generates an input file that submit to the Abaqus/Standard or
Abaqus/Explicit analysis product. The analysis product performs the analysis, sends infor-
mation to Abaqus/CAE to monitor the progress of the job, and generates an output database.
Finally, the Visualization module of Abaqus/CAE (also licensed separately as Abaqus/Viewer)
to read the output database and view the results of analysis.

3.2 ABAQUS/VIEWER
Abaqus/Viewer provides graphical display of Abaqus finite element models and results.
Abaqus/Viewer is incorporated into Abaqus/CAE as the Visualization module.

3.3 Module
Abaqus/CAE is divided into functional units called modules. Each module contains only
those tools that are relevant to a specific portion of the modeling task. For example, the Mesh
module contains only the tools needed to create finite element meshes, while the Job module

8
contains only the tools used to create, edit, submit, and monitor analysis jobs. Abaqus/Viewer
is a subset of Abaqus/CAE that contains only the Visualization module.

A module can be selected from the Module list in the context bar. Alternatively, the module
can be selected by switching to the context of a selected object in the Model Tree. The order of
the modules in the menu and in the Model Tree corresponds to the logical sequence to create a
model. In many circumstances this natural progression must foolwed to complete a modeling
task. Although the order of the modules follows a logical sequence, Abaqus/CAE allows to
select any module at any time, regardless of the state of model.

The following list of the modules available within Abaqus/CAE briefly describes the mod-
eling tasks to perform in each module. The order of the modules in the list corresponds to the
order of the modules in the context bars Module list and in the Model Tree shown in figure 3.1.

Part

Parts are the building blocks of an Abaqus/CAE model. Use Part module to create each
part, and use the Assembly module to assemble instances of the parts.

Property

Create section and material definitions and assign them to regions of parts. Use the Property
module shown in fig: 3.2 to perform the following tasks:
• Define materials.

• Define beam section profiles.

• Define sections.

• Assign sections, orientations, normals, and tangents to parts.

• Define composite layups.

• Define a skin reinforcement.

• Define inertia (point mass, rotary inertia, and heat capacitance) on a part.

• Define springs and dash pots between two points or between a point and ground.

9
 • Define material calibrations.

Figure 3.1: Tools in a module

Figure 3.2: Tools available in property section

Assembly

Creates and assemble part instances. Use the Assembly module to create and modify the
assembly. A model contains one main assembly, which is composed of instances of parts from
the model as well as instances of other models.

10
Step

Create and define the analysis steps and associated output requests. Use the Step module
to perform the following tasks:
• Create analysis steps.

• Specify output requests.

• Specify adaptive meshing.

• Specify analysis controls.

Interaction

Specify the interactions, such as contact, between regions of a model. Use the Interaction
module to define and manage the following objects:
• Mechanical and thermal interactions between regions of a model or between a region of a
model and its surroundings.
• The interface region and coupling schemes for an Abaqus/Standard to Abaqus/Explicit co-
simulation.
• The interface region and coupling step period for a fluid-structure co-simulation (between
Abaqus/CFD and Abaqus/Standard or Abaqus/Explicit).
• Analysis constraints between regions of a model.
• Assembly - level wire features, connector sections, and connector section assignments to model
connectors.
• Inertia (point mass, rotary inertia, and heat capacitance) on regions of the model.
• Cracks on regions of the model.
• Springs and dashpots between two points of a model or between a point of a model and ground.

Load

Specify loads, boundary conditions, and fields. Use the Load module to define and manage
the following prescribed conditions:
• Loads

• Boundary conditions

11
• Predefined fields

• Load cases

Mesh

Create a finite element mesh. The Mesh module contains tools that allows to generate
meshes on parts and assemblies created within Abaqus/CAE. In addition, the Mesh module
contains functions that verify an existing mesh.

Optimization

Create and configure an optimization task. Use the Optimization module to create an op-
timization task that can be used to optimize the topology or shape of model given a set of
objectives and a set of restrictions. For example, an optimization can attempt to remove mate-
rial from selected regions to satisfy a maximum weight objective while maintaining a minimum
stiffness.

Job

Submit a job for analysis and monitor its progress. Use the Job module to create and man-
age analysis jobs and to view a basic plot of the analysis results. Also use the Job module to
create and manage adaptivity analyses and co-executions.

Visualization

View analysis results. Use the Visualization module to view model and the results of analysis.

Sketch

Create two-dimensional sketches. Sketches are two-dimensional profiles that are used to help
form the geometry defining an Abaqus/CAE native part. Use the Sketch module to create a
sketch that defines a planar part, a beam, or a partition or to create a sketch that might be

12
extruded, swept, or revolved to form a three-dimensional part.

Modules can be classified by the objects that are displayed in the view port. Parts are
displayed in the Part and Property modules.The assembly is displayed in the Assembly, Step,
Interaction, Load, Mesh and Job modules, and output data base results are displayed in the
Visualization module.

The contents of the main window change between modules. Selecting a module from the
Module list on the context bar or by switching to the context of a selected object in the Model
Tree causes the context bar, module tool box, and menubar to change to reflect the function-
ality of the current module.

Switching between modules, Abaqus/CAE associates the current viewport with the module
selected. There are multiple viewports, and different viewports that can be associated with
different modules. Select a viewport and make it current, the module associated with the view-
port becomes the current module.

3.4 ABAQUS Units

ABAQUS has no units built into it except for rotation and angle measures. Therefore, the
units chosen must be self-consistent, which means that derived units of the chosen system can
be expressed in terms of the fundamental units without conversion factors.

The International System of units (SI) is an example of a self - consistent set of units. The
fundamental units in the SI system are length in meters (m), mass in kilograms (kg), time in
seconds (s), temperature in degrees Kelvin (K), and electric current in Amperes (A). In this
project, a consistent set of units as SI units are followed. The units of secondary or derived
quantities are based on these fundamental units. An example is shown in table 3.1

ABAQUS runs without any units - all numbers.

Understand this as:

1. All of the units are SI, such as Newtons, Pascals and meters.

13
 Table 3.1: ABAQUS Consistent Units

SI SI (mm) U S unit (ft) U S unit (inch)

Quantity
Length m mm ft in

Force N N lbf lbf

Mass Kg tonne (103 Kg) slug lbf S 2 /in

Time S S S S

Stress Pa (N/m2 ) MPa (N/mm2 ) lbf /f t2 psi(libf /m2 )

Energy J (N − m) mJ (10− 3J) ft lbf in lbf

Density Kg/m2 tonne/mm3 slug/f t3 lbf s2 /in

2. If input is in millimeters and Newtons, then it will give kilo-Pascals in output.

Essentially, the output units will match input units.

14
Chapter 4

Types of Foundations

4.1 Introduction
The superstructure is placed on the top of the foundation structure, designated as substruc-
ture as they are placed below the ground level. The elements of the superstructure transfer the
loads and moments to its adjacent element below it and finally all loads and moments come to
the foundation structure, which in turn, transfers them to the underlying soil or rock. Thus,
the foundation structure effectively supports the superstructure. However, all types of soil get
compressed significantly and cause the structure to settle.

4.2 Footing
Footing is defined as a structure constructed in brickwork, masonry or concrete under the
base of a wall or column for the purpose of distributing the load over a larger area.

Foundation is that part of a structure which is in direct contact with soil and transmits load
into it.

4.3 Foundation
In engineering, a foundation is the element of a structure which connects it to the ground,
and transfers loads from the structure to the ground. Foundations are generally considered
either shallow or deep.

15
Accordingly, the major requirements of the design of foundation structures are the two as given
below.

1. Foundation structures should be able to sustain the applied loads, moments, forces and
induced reactions without exceeding the safe bearing capacity of the soil.

2. The settlement of the structure should be as uniform as possible and it should be within
the tolerable limits. It is well known from the structural analysis that differential set-
tlement of supports causes additional moments in statically indeterminate structures.
Therefore, avoiding the differential settlement is considered as more important than max-
imum uniform overall settlement of the structure.

In addition to the two major requirements mentioned above, the foundation structure should
provide adequate safety for maintaining the stability of structure due to either overturning
and/or sliding (see cl.20 of IS 456). It is to be noted that this part of the structure is con-
structed at the first stage before other components (columns / beams etc.) are taken up. So,
in a project, foundation design and details are completed before designs of other components
are undertaken.

However, it is worth mentioning that the design of foundation structures is somewhat dif-
ferent from the design of other elements of superstructure due to the reasons given below.
Therefore, foundation structures need special attention of the designers.

1. Foundation structures undergo soil-structure interaction. Therefore, the behaviour of

foundation structures depends on the properties of structural materials and soil. Deter-
mination of properties of soil of different types itself is a specialized topic of geotechnical
engineering. Understanding the interacting behaviour is also difficult. Hence, the differ-
ent assumptions and simplifications adopted for the design need scrutiny. In fact, for the
design of foundations of important structures and for difficult soil conditions, geotechnical
experts should be consulted for the proper soil investigation to determine the properties
of soil, strata wise and its settlement criteria.

2. Accurate estimations of all types of loads, moments and forces are needed for the present
as well as for future expansion, if applicable. It is very important as the foundation
structure, once completed, is difficult to strengthen in future.

16
 3. Foundation structures, though remain underground involving very little architectural aes-
thetics, have to be housed within the property line which may cause additional forces and
moments due to the eccentricity of foundation.

4. Foundation structures are in direct contact with the soil and may be affected due to
harmful chemicals and minerals present in the soil and fluctuations of water table when
it is very near to the foundation. Moreover, periodic inspection and maintenance are
practically impossible for the foundation structures.

5. Foundation structures, while constructing, may affect the adjoining structure forming
cracks to total collapse, particularly during the driving of piles etc.

However, wide ranges of types of foundation structures are available. It is very important
to select the appropriate type depending on the type of structure, condition of the soil at the
location of construction, other surrounding structures and several other practical aspects as
mentioned above.

The footing has to be designed to spread the building load over the soil foundation material
and is sized to suit the strength of the soil under. Footings are designed in consultation with
a structural engineer and will vary depending upon a number of factors:
• Weight of building
• Wall construction type and height
• Soil type
• Slope of the block
• Budget
• Drainage requirements on the block

17
4.4 Types of Foundation Structures
Foundations are mainly of two types:

(i) Shallow foundations and

(ii) Deep foundations.

The two different types are explained below:

4.4.1 Shallow Foundation

Foundation which is placed near the surface of the earth or transfers the loads at a shallow
depth is called shallow foundation (shown in fig: 4.1).
A shallow foundation is a type of building foundation that transfers building loads to the
earth very near to the surface, rather than to a subsurface layer or a range of depths as does a
deep foundation.
According to Terzaghi, Shallow foundations are constructed where soil layer at shallow
depth (upto 1.5m) is able to support the structural loads. The depth of shallow foundations
are generally less than its width. Means the ratio of depth of foundations, D to the width of
foundation, B is equal to or less than 1.

4.4.2 Deep Foundation

Foundation which is placed at a greater depth or transfers the loads to deep strata is called
deep foundation(shown in fig: 4.1).
In deep foundation, the depth at which foundation is placed is greater than its width. The
depth to width ratio of the foundation is usually greater than 4 to 5. Unlike shallow foundations,
deep foundations distribute the load of superstructure into the ground vertically rather than
laterally.
Few examples of deep foundations are:- Pile foundations, pier foundations and wells or
caissons foundations.
When the expected loads from superstructure cannot be supported on shallow foundations,
deep foundations are provided.

18
 Figure 4.1: Schematic Diagram Of Shallow And Deep Foundation

4.5 Shallow Foundation

Types Of Shallow Foundations

• Isolated/ spread footings

• Wall footings

• Combined footings

• Cantilever or Strap footings

• Raft or Mat foundations

4.5.1 Isolated Spread Footing

Isolated footings (also known as Pad or Spread footings) shown in fig: 4.2, are commonly
used for shallow foundations in order to carry and spread concentrated loads, caused for exam-
ple by columns or pillars. Isolated footings can consist either of reinforced or non-reinforced
material.

19
 This type of footing is used when
• Columns are not closely spaced.
• Loads on footings are less.
• The Safe bearing capacity of the soil is generally high.
The Isolated footings essentially consist of a bottom slab. There are three basic types of
bottom slabs are:

1. Pad footing (with uniform thickness)

2. Stepped footing (with nonuniform thickness)

3. Sloped footing (trapezoidal section)

Figure 4.2: Schematic Diagram of Pad, Stepped and Sloped Footings

Some of the popular shapes in plan of the footings are, shown in fig: 4.3

1. Square footing

2. Rectangular footing

3. Circular footing

20
 Figure 4.3: Schematic Diagram of Square, Rectangular and Circular Footings

4.5.2 Wall Footing

A wall footing or strip footing is a continuous strip of concrete that serves to spread the
weight of a load-bearing wall across an area of soil. It is the component of a shallow foundation.
A schematic diagram of wall footing is shown in fig: 4.4.

Wall footings are pad or spread and strip Footings. The basic purpose of this foundation
is to spread the load over a larger area so that the soil is able to withstand the stress, and the
safe bearing pressure is not exceeded. In such types of foundations, if the resultant of the load
deviates from the centre line by more than 116 of its least dimension at the base of the footing,
it should be suitably reinforced.

21
 Figure 4.4: Schematic Diagram of Wall Footing

4.5.3 Combined Footing

A combined footing supports two columns. It is used when the two columns are so close to
each other that their individual footings would overlap. A combined footing is also provided
when the property line is so close to one column that a spread footing would be eccentrically
loaded when kept entirely within the property line. By combining it with that of an interior
column, the load is evenly distributed. A combined footing may be rectangular or trapezoidal
in plan. A schematic diagram of combined footing is shown in fig: 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Schematic Diagram of Combined Footings

22
4.5.4 Cantilever or Strap footing

A strap (or cantilever) footing shown in fig: 4.6, consists of two isolated footings connected
with a structural strap or a lever. The strap connects the two footings such that they behave
as one unit. The strap is designed as a rigid beam. The individual footings are so designed
that their combined line of action passes through the resultant of the total load. a strap footing
is more economical than a combined footing when the allowable soil pressure is relatively high
and the distance between the columns is large.

Figure 4.6: Schematic Diagram of Cantilever Footings

4.5.5 MAT or RAFT Foundation

A mat or raft foundation shown in fig: 4.7, is a large slab supporting a number of columns
and walls under the entire structure or a large part of the structure. A mat is required when
the allowable soil pressure is low or where the columns and walls are so close that individual
footings would overlap or nearly touch each other.
Mat foundations are useful in reducing the differential settlements on non-homogeneous
soils or where there is a large variation in the loads on individual columns.

23
 Figure 4.7: Schematic Diagram of MAT or RAFT Footings

4.6 Deep Foundation

4.6.1 Pile Foundation

The pile foundation is a type of deep footing. This is used are applied when the superstruc-
ture is heavy i.e., when it is a large and tall structure such as apartments or malls, etc. They
are driven into the soil deep enough so that the tip of the pile touches the solid rock strata
below, so the load can be transferred easily without any damage. The pile foundation can be
cast in site or it can be a precast pile. Normally a pile foundation as a pile cap to protect the
top of the pile while driving it to the soil.
The pile foundations are classified based on load carrying characteristic of piles, material of
pile construction and type of soil.
Classification of pile foundation:

1. Classification based on load transmission :

End bearing piles (Point bearing) and Friction piles

2. Classification based on Material of Piles Construction :

Timber piles, Steel Piles, Concrete piles and Composite piles

3. Classification based on the effect of soil :

24
 Driven piles and Bored piles

End Bearing Piles

These transmit most of their loads to the load bearing layer (which can be dense sand or
rock). Most of the pile capacity is inferred from the end bearing point. A schematic diagram
of end bearing foundation is shown in fig: 4.9.

Figure 4.8: Schematic Diagram of End bearing piles

Friction Piles

These transmit their load through the layers through which the piles pass which is mostly
through the surface friction (skin friction shown in fig: 4.10) with the surrounding soils. Here
the piles are driven to such a depth that the frictional resistance which is developed at the side
of the piles equals to the load coming on the piles.

Timber Piles

Timber can be used for manufacture of temporary piles and also for permanent ones in
regions where timber is readily and economically available. Its most suitable for long cohesion
piling and piling under embankments.

25
 Figure 4.9: Schematic Diagram of Friction piles

Steel Piles

Steel can be used for both temporary and permanent works. They are suitable for handling
and driving for piles with prolonged lengths. Their relatively small cross sectional area along
with the high strength makes penetration easier in firm soil. If its driven in to a soil with
low Ph value, there may occur a risk of corrosion which can be eliminated by tar coating or
cathodic protection. A schematic diagram of end bearing foundation is shown in fig: 4.11.

Concrete Piles

Concrete is used to manufacture of precast concrete piles, cast in place and pre-stressed
concrete piles. Pre-stressed concrete piles are becoming more approved than the ordinary pre-
cast as less reinforcement is required.

Composite Piles

When a pile consists of a combination of different materials in the same pile shown in fig:
4.12, its called as Composite pile. For example, part of timber pile which is installed above
ground water could be endangered to insect attack and decay. So to avoid this, concrete or
steel pile is used above ground water level whilst timber is installed under the ground water
level.

26
Driven Piles

In this process of driving of pile into the ground, soil is moved radially when the pile shaft
enters the ground. There may exist a component of movement of the soil in the vertical
direction. Hence driven piles are considered as displacement piles.

Bored Piles

In this process, a void is formed by boring or excavation before pile is introduced into the
ground. Piles can be produced by casting concrete in the void. Boring piles are considered as
non-displacement piles.

Figure 4.10: Schematic Diagram of Steel piles

27
 Figure 4.11: Schematic Diagram of Composite pile

4.6.2 Well Foundation

Well foundation is a type of deep foundation which is generally provided below the water level
for bridges. Cassions or well have been in use for foundations of bridges and other structures
since Roman and Mughal periods.
The term cassion is derived from the French word caisse which means box or chest. Hence
cassion means a box like structure, round or rectangular, which is sunk from the surface of
either land or water to some desired depth.

Different Shapes of Well

The common types of well shapes are:

1. Single circular

2. Dumb well

3. Twin circular

4. Rectangular

5. Twin octagonal

6. Twin hexagonal

7. Double-D

The choice of a particular shape of well depends upon the size of the pier, the considerations of
tilt and the shift during sinking and the vertical and horizontal forces to which well is subjected.

28
Chapter 5

Bearing Capacity Equations

In geotechnical engineering, bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads
applied to the ground. The bearing capacity of soil is the maximum average contact pressure
between the foundation and the soil which should not produce shear failure in the soil. Ultimate
bearing capacity is the theoretical maximum pressure which can be supported without failure.
Allowable bearing capacity is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a factor of safety. Some-
times, on soft soil sites, large settlements may occur under loaded foundations without actual
shear failure occurring. In such cases, the allowable bearing capacity is based on the maximum
allowable settlement.

5.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Karl von Terzaghi was the first to present a comprehensive theory for the evaluation of the
ultimate bearing capacity of rough shallow foundations. This theory states that a foundation
is shallow if its depth is less than or equal to its width. Later investigations, however, have
suggested that foundations with a depth, measured from the ground surface, equal to 3 to 4
times their width may be defined as shallow foundations.

Terzaghi developed a method for determining bearing capacity for the general shear failure
case in 1943. The equations, which take into account soil cohesion, soil friction, embedment,
surcharge, and self-weight, are given below.

Based on Terzaghis bearing capacity theory, column load P is resisted by shear stresses at
edges of three zones under the footing and the overburden pressure, (q=γ D) above the footing

29
 Figure 5.1: Shear stresses based on Terzaghis soil bearing capacity theory

as shown in fig: 5.1. The first term in the equation is related to cohesion of the soil. The second
term is related to the depth of the footing and overburden pressure. The third term is related
to the width of the footing and the length of shear stress area. The bearing capacity factors,
Nc, Nq,N γ, are function of internal friction angle, φ.

5.1.1 Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Equations

Strip footings:
Qu = cNc + γDNq + 0.5γBNγ (5.1)

Square footings:
Qu = 1.3cNc + γDNq + 0.4γBNγ (5.2)

Circular footings:
Qu = 1.3cNc + γDNq + 0.3BNγ (5.3)

Where:
C= Cohesion of soil
γ= unit weight of soil
D= depth of footing
B= width of footing

30
Nc, Nq, Nγ are Terzaghis bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle.

N c = cotφ(N q − 1) (5.4)

Nq = e2 (3φ/4 − φ/2)tanφ/[2cos2 (45 + φ/2)] (5.5)

Nγ = (1/2)tanφ(Kpr /cos2 φ − 1) (5.6)

(Note: from Boweles, Foundation analysis and design, ”Terzaghi never explained..how he ob-
tained Kpr used to compute Nγ ”)

Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors

The following table 5.1 and fig: 5.2 shows the Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors:

Table 5.1: Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors

φ Nc Nq Nr

0 5.7 1 0

5 7.3 1.6 0.5

10 9.6 2.7 1.2

15 1.9 4.4 2.5

20 17.7 7.4 5

25 25.1 12.7 9.7

30 37.2 22.5 19.7

35 57.8 41.4 42.4

40 95.7 81.3 100.4

5.2 Meyerhof ’s Bearing Capacity Theory

Meyerhof (1963) proposed a formula for calculation of bearing capacity similar to the one
proposed by Terzaghi but introducing further foundation shape coefficients. He introduced a
coefficient, sq that multiplies the Nq factor, depth factors, di and inclination factors,ii depth
factors and inclination factors for the cases where the load line is inclined to the vertical.

31
 Figure 5.2: Terzaghis bearing capacity factors

Meyerhof provided two general equations - one for the case when the resultant load at
the bearing level (Qb) is vertical (no horizontal component), and one for the case when Qb
is inclined from vertical (can be resolved into vertical and horizontal components) with the
horizontal component of load in the direction of the width of the footing.

32
5.2.1 Meyerhof ’s General Bearing Capacity Equations

Vertical load,
Qu = cNc Sc Dc + γDNq Sq Dq + 0.5γBNγ Sγ Dγ (5.7)

Inclined load,
Qu = cNc Sc Dc Ic + γDNq Sq Dq Iq + 0.5γBNγ Sγ Dγ Iγ (5.8)

Where,
Nc, Nq, Nγ are Meyerhofs bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle, φ.

Nc = cotφ(Nq − 1) (5.9)

Nq = eπtanφ tan2 (45 + φ/2) (5.10)

Nγ = (Nq − 1)tan(1.4φ) (5.11)

Sc, Sq, Sγ are shape factors

Dc, Dq, Dγ are depth factors

Ic, Iq, Iγ are incline load factors.

Table 5.2: Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Factors

Shape factor Depth factor Inclined load factor

Friction angle

Ic = Iq = (1 − θ/90)2
p
Sc = 1 + 0.2Kp (B/L) Dc = 1 + 0.2 Kp (B/L)
Any φ

Sq = Sγ = 1 Dq = Dγ =1 Iγ =1
φ=0

Iγ = (1 − θ/φ)2
p
Sq = Sγ = 1 + 0.1Kp (B/L) Dq = Dr = 1 + 0.1 Kp (D/B)
φ> 10o

Where:

33
C= Cohesion of soil
γ= unit weight of soil
D= depth of footing
B, L= width and length of footing
Kpr = passive pressure coefficient
θ = angle of axial load to vertical axis

Table 5.3: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors

φ Nc Nq Nr

0 5.1 1 0

5 6.5 1.6 0.1

10 8.3 2.5 0.4

15 11 3.9 1.2

20 14.9 6.4 2.9

25 20.7 10.7 6.8

30 30.1 18.4 15.1

35 46.4 33.5 34.4

40 975.3 64.1 79.4

34
Figure 5.3: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors

35
Chapter 6

Modelling and Analysis of Strip footing

on one - layered and two - layered soil

6.1 Calculation for one - layered soil

The strip footing resting on one - layered soil considered for both theoretical and FEM anal-
ysis (Abaqus software) is as shown in fig: 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Figure shows problem considered for analysis

Properties of the soil :

• Density, γ = 1723 kg/m3

36
• Poisson’s ratio, ν = 0.33
• Footing width, B = 3m
• Cohesion, C = 100KPa
• Friction angle, φ = 0
• Young’s modulus, E = 2 X 105 KPa

From Terzaghi’s theory, ultimate bearing capacity,

qu = CNc + qNq + 0.5BNγ (6.1)

where,
q = surcharge load = γDf
Nc , Nq and Nγ are Terzaghi’s bearing capacity factors
for φ = 0 ,
from table , Nc = 5.7 ,Nq = 1.0 and Nγ =0.0
therefore , ultimate bearing capacity, qu = 100 X 5.7 + 0 X 1 + 0.5 X 17.26 X 3 X 0 = 570 KPa
The same problem is modelled and analyzed in ABAQUS (6.13) software and is described below
section.

6.2 Model creation and Analysis of Strip footing on one

- layered soil
The soil is created as an elasto - plastic material. Due to symmetry of the soil, half part of the
soil is modelled i.e., 15 m length and 10 m depth.

Creating a part

Part module is used to create parts of the objects of structure. This is done by sketching
the two - dimensional profile of the Soil(a rectangle). Due to symmetry, half part of the soil is
modelled. The dimensions of the part is taken as 15 m length and 10 m depth shown in fig: 6.2.

Material properties

Property module is used to create a material and define its properties. The soil is modelled
as an elasto - plastic material.

37
 Figure 6.2: Figure shows that part created in ABAQUS

To define a material:

1. In the Module list located under the toolbar, select Property to enter the Property module.

2. From the main menu bar, select Material - > Create to create a new material. The Create
Material dialog box appears.

3. Name the material SOIL, and click Continue.

The material editor appears. Use the menu bar under the browser area of the material
editor to reveal menus containing all the available material options. Some of the menu items
contain submenus; for example, Figure 6.3 shows the options available under the Mechanical
-> Elasticity menu item.

1. Select a material option, the appropriate data entry form appears below the menu.

2. From the material editors menu bar, select Mechanical->Elasticity->Elastic. ABAQUS/CAE

displays the Elastic data form.

3. Like this way define the material properties(E = 2e5 KPa) required.

4. Go to General->Density and give density as 1726 kg3 .

5. Give cohesion as 100KPa and φ= 0 in Mohr coulomb elasticity section.

38
 Figure 6.3: Figure shows the material density in ABAQUS

Defining and Assigning of section properties

Section properties are defined to the model by creating sections in the Property module.
The assigned section is shown in fig: 6.4. After creating the section, use one of the following
two methods to assign the section to the part in the current viewport:

Figure 6.4: Assigned section

1. Select the region from the part and assign the section to the selected region.

39
 2. Use the Set toolset to create a homogeneous set containing the region and assign the
section to the set.

In this model first method is used to assign the section properties.

Assembling the model

Each part that created is oriented in its own coordinate system and is independent of the
other parts in the model. Use the Assembly module to define the geometry of the finished model,
called the assembly, by creating instances of a part and then positioning the instances relative to
each other in a global coordinate system. Although a model may contain many parts, it contains
only one assembly. For the SOIL, single instance of soil layer is created. ABAQUS/CAE
positions the instance so that the origin of the sketch that defined the rectangular profile of the
soil overlays the origin of the assemblys default coordinate system.
To assemble the model:

1. In the Module list located under the toolbar, click Assembly to enter the Assembly mod-
ule. The cursor changes to an hourglass while the Assembly module loads.

2. From the main menu bar, select Instance->Create. The Create Instance dialog box
appears.

3. In the dialog box, select Beam and click OK.

Creating a MESH

Basic meshing is a twostage operation: firstly, seed the edges of the part instance, and then
mesh the part instance. Select the number of seeds as 0.1 based on the desired element size or
on the number of elements that is needed along an edge, and ABAQUS/CAE places the nodes
of the mesh at the seeds whenever possible. For soil the default seeding will generate a mesh
with square hexahedral elements as shown in fig: 6.5.

To mesh the model:

1. From the main menu bar, select Seed->Instance to seed the part instance. The prompt
area displays the default element size that ABAQUS/CAE will use to seed the part
instance. This default element size is based on the size of the part instance.

40
 Figure 6.5: Figure shows the meshing of soil

2. In the prompt area, erase the default element size of 20.0, type a value of 0.1, and press
[Enter] or click mouse button 2 in the viewport. ABAQUS/CAE applies the seeds to the
part instance, it will give more control of the resulting mesh by seeding each edge of the
part instance individually.

3. Click mouse button 2 in the viewport to accept the seeding.

itemFrom the main menu bar, select Mesh->Instance to mesh the part instance.

4. From the buttons in the prompt area, click Yes to confirm to mesh the part instance.
ABAQUS/CAE meshes the part instance and displays the resulting mesh

SET

1. Go to SETS->create->type master node-> OK.

2. Go to SETS->create->type slave node-> OK.

Constraints

Go to Assembly->Constraints->select equation->give coefficients for master and slave and

click OK.

Step

Creating an analysis step:

41
 1. In the Module list located under the toolbar, click Step to enter the Step module. The
cursor changes to an hourglass while the Step module loads.

2. From the main menu bar, select Step->Create to create a step. The Create Step dialog
box appears with a list of all the general procedures and a default step name of Step-1.
General procedures are those that can be used to analyze linear or nonlinear response.

3. Name the step as Loading.

4. From the list of available general procedures in the Create Step dialog box, select Static,
General if it is not already selected and click Continue The Edit Step dialog box appears
with the default settings for a general, static step.

5. The Basic tab is selected by default. In the Description field, type Load the top of the
soil.

6. Click the Incrementation tab, and accept the default time incrementation settings.

7. Click the Other tab to see its contents and accept the default values provided for the step.

8. Click OK to create the step and to exit the Edit Step dialog box.

Applying boundary conditions

1. The bottom of the soil is fixed in x,y and z directions.

2. Right side of the soil is fixed in X- Direction

3. Left side of the soil is given as symmetric about Y-Direction.

The BC menu is used to create a boundary condition that constrains the soil to be built-in
at one end of the soil.
To apply boundary conditions to one end of the soil:

1. In the Module list located under the toolbar, click Load to enter the Load module. The
cursor changes to an hourglass while the Load module loads.

2. From the main menu bar, select BC->Create. The Create Boundary Condition dialog
box appears.

3. In the Create Boundary Condition dialog box:

42
 Figure 6.6: Boundary conditions of the soil

(a) Name the boundary condition Fixed.

(b) From the list of steps, select Initial as the step in which the boundary condition will
be activated.

(c) In the Category list, accept Mechanical as the default category selection.

(d) In the Type for Selected Step list, accept Symmetry/Antisymmetry/Encastre as the
default type selection, and click Continue.

ABAQUS/CAE displays prompts in the prompt area to guide through the procedure.

4. Fix the ends of the soil; the desired face is shown in Figure 6.6.

Creating and submitting an analysis job

To create and submit an analysis job:

1. In the Module list located under the toolbar, click Job to enter the Job module. The
cursor changes to an hourglass while the Job module loads.

2. From the main menu bar, select Job->Create to create a job. The Create Job dialog
box appears with a list of the models in the model database.

43
 3. Name the job Deform.

4. Click Continue to create the job. The Edit Job dialog box appears.

5. In the Description field, type soil analysis.

6. Click the tabs to review the default settings in the job editor. Click OK to accept all the
default job settings and to close the dialog box.

7. From the main menu bar, select Job->Manager to start the Job Manager. The Job
Manager appears and displays a list of jobs, the model associated with each job, the type
of analysis, and the status of the job.

8. From the buttons on the right edge of the Job Manager, click Submit to submit job for
analysis. After submitting job, the information in the Status column updates to indicate
the jobs status. The Status column for the soil analysis shows one of the following:

(a) Submitted while the solver input file is being generated.

(b) Running while ABAQUS analyzes the model. Completed when the analysis is com-
plete, and the output has been written to the output database.

(c) Aborted if ABAQUS/CAE finds a problem with the input file or the analysis and
aborts the analysis. In addition, ABAQUS/CAE reports the problem in the message
area.

9. When the job completes successfully, ready to view the results of the analysis with the
Visualization module. From the buttons on the right edge of the Job Manager, click Re-
sults. ABAQUS/CAE loads the Visualization module, opens the output database created
by the job, and displays a representation of the model

Viewing the results of soil analysis

While opening an output database, ABAQUS/CAE immediately displays a fast represen-

tation of the model that is similar to an undeformed shape plot.
To view the results of analysis :

1. Click Results in the Job modules Job Manager, ABAQUS/CAE loads the Visualization
module, opens Deform.odb, and displays a fast plot of the model, as shown in figure 6.7

44
 and figure 6.8.
The title block indicates the following:

(a) The job description.

(b) The output database from which ABAQUS/CAE read the data.

(c) The version of ABAQUS/Standard or ABAQUS/Explicit that was used to generate

the output database.

(d) The date the output database was generated.

The state block indicates the following:

(a) The step name and the step description.

(b) The increment within the step.

(c) The step time.

By default, ABAQUS/CAE plots the last step and the last frame of analysis. Buttons
that allow to control which analysis results are plotted are available in the prompt area.

Figure 6.7: Failure of the soil

2. From the main menu bar, select Plot->Undeformed Shape to view an undeformed shape
plot. The models color changes to green to indicate that this is an undeformed shape
plot, not a fast plot.

45
 Figure 6.8: Vertical deformation of the soil

3. From the main menu bar, select Plot->Deformed Shape to view a deformed shape plot.

4. Click the auto-fit tool so that the entire plot is rescaled to fit in the viewport.

5. From the main menu bar, select Plot->Contours to view a contour plot of the von Mises
stress.

6. Click the Contour Options button at the bottom- right corner of the prompt area to
change the appearance of the current plot.

7. Click Cancel to close the Contour Plot Options dialog box.

8. For a contour plot the default variable displayed depends on the analysis procedure; in this
case, the default variable is the von Mises stress. From the main menu bar, select Result-
>Field Output to examine the variables that are available for display. ABAQUS/CAE
displays the Field Output dialog box; click the Primary Variable tab to choose which
variable to display and to select the invariant or component of interest. By default, the
Mises invariant of the Stress components at integration points variable is selected.

9. Click Cancel to close the Field Output dialog box.

46
 Figure 6.9: Graph showing soil displacement vs bearing capacity

6.3 Results for one - layered soil

Bearing capacity vs Displacement

The fig: 6.9 represents the graph of bearing capacity of one layer soil. The force and displace-
ment of the one layer soil in Abaqus software is shown in table 6.1.
The following table shows the results of one - layered soil in both Theoretical and FEM
analysis :

Figure 6.10: Results from Theoretical and FEM

From the above table, it is observed that both theoretical and FEM analysis got same re-
sults with minimum error.

47
 Table 6.1: Variation of force with displacement for one layer soil

Displacement m Force KPa

0 0
0.00625 238.353
0.0078125 288.2276667
0.0101562 338.2533333
0.0136719 384.06
0.0189453 435.5066667
0.0242187 475.1166667
0.0294922 506.8466667
0.0374023 540.2633333
0.0403687 549.1333333
0.0448181 559.59
0.0514923 565.3333333
0.0581665 567.1466667
0.0648407 568.3966667
0.074852 569.7666667
0.0898689 570.98
0.112394 572.0366667
0.146182 572.9466667
0.196865 573.7233333
0.272888 574.3966667
0.386923 575
0.557975 575.5
0.814553 575.94
1 576.14

6.4 Theoretical calculation for two - layered soil

The following example problem shows the theoretical calculation of the two - layered soil :
Properties of the upper layer soil and lower layer soil is as shown in below table 6.2 :

Table 6.2: Table showing the properties two - layered soil

Layer 1 layer 2
Properties of Soils
Density (KN/m3 ) 1726 1726
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33 0.33
Cohesion (KN/m2 ) 50 100
Friction angle 0 0
Young’s modulus (KN/m2 ) 2.00E+06 2.00E+06

Average cohesion,

48
 Figure 6.11: Figure showing the example problem of two - layered soil

d1c1 + (H − d1)C2
C0 = (6.2)
H
Where,
d1 = depth of upper layer in m
d2 = depth of lower layer in m
C1 = cohesive strength of upper layer KPa
C2 = cohesive strength of lower layer KPa
B = width of footing = 3m
H = depth of wedge in m = 0.5BTan(45 + φ/2) = 0.5 X3 X Tan(45 + 0/2) = 0.5m
For, C1 = 50 KPa, C2 = 100 Kpa

1.22X50 + (1.5 − 1.22)100

Average cohesion, C| =
1.5

therefore, C = 59.333 KPa

from Terzaghi’s theory, ultimate bearing capacity,
qu = CNc + qNq + 0.5BNγ
qu = 59.333 X 5.7 + 31.58 X 1 + 0 = 369.8781 KPa (since, surcharge, q = 31.58 Kpa)

49
6.5 Creating and Analyzing of two - layered soil
The modelling of a two - layered soil is same as one - layered soil as explained in before
section except the interaction between the two surfaces of the soil layers. A brief explanation
for interacting the surfaces is explained below :

Create interaction

1. In the Module list located under the toolbar, select Interaction to enter the interaction
module.

2. The cursor changes to an hourglass while the Interaction module loads.

3. Select finite sliding and discretization method as Surface to surface.

4. Select contact interaction property->contact->continue->mechanical->normal behavior

as shown in fig: 6.12.

5. From the main menu bar, select default settings and press ok which is shown in fig: 6.13.

Create contraints

1. Select create constraints->Tie->continue.

2. From the assembled part, select master surface and slave surface and OK.

6.6 Results for two - layered soil

The following table shows the results of two - layered soil in both Theoretical and FEM
analysis:
Fig: 6.14 and fig: 6.15 shows the shear failure and vertical deformation of the two - layered soil
respectively.

50
 Figure 6.12: Creating interaction between layers

The bearing capacity of the two - layered soil increases with decrease in the C1 /C2 ratios.

51
 Figure 6.13: Figure showing the failure of two - layered soil at integration points

Figure 6.14: Figure showing the vertical deformation of two - layered soil

From the fig: 6.15, the graph shows the Bearing capacity variation of two - layered soil with
C1 /C2 ratio from FEM analysis (Abaqus software).

From fig: 6.16, the graph shows the Bearing capacity variation of two - layered soil with
C1 /C2 ratio from both theoretical and FEM analysis (Abaqus software). The error is minimum

52
Table 6.3: Table showing the bearing capacity of both analysis for two - layered soil of Df /d1
ratio = 1.5 and d1 /d2 = 0.122

c1/c2 C2 KPa FEM (KPa) Theoretical (KPa) Error %

C1 KPa
C1 = 50 0.1 500 359.994 795.48 54.75
C1 = 50 0.3 166.666 359.876 440.316 18.27
C1 = 50 0.45 111.111 359.704 381.699 5.76
C1 = 50 0.5 100 359.61 369.878 2.78
C1 = 50 1 50 322.985 316.68 1.95
C1 = 50 1.3 38.461 283.837 304.402 6.76
C1 = 50 1.5 33.333 263.12 298.941 11.98
C1 = 50 2 25 225.22 290.078 22.36
C1 = 50 5 10 136.103 274.118 50.35
C1 = 100 0.1 1000 685.56 1559.28 56.03
C1 = 100 0.3 333.333 685.426 849.915 19.35
C1 = 100 0.45 222.222 685.046 731.719 6.38
C1 = 100 0.5 200 684.773 708.081 3.29
C1 = 100 1 100 614.082 601.68 2.01
C1 = 100 1.3 76.923 535.534 577.126 7.21
C1 = 100 1.5 66.666 493.77 566.169 12.79
C1 = 100 2 50 418.088 548.481 23.77
C1 = 100 5 20 240.188 516.561 53.50
C1 = 150 0.1 1500 1010.006 2323.08 56.52
C1 = 150 0.3 500 1009.86 1259.079 19.79
C1 = 150 0.45 333.333 1009.273 1081.745 6.70
C1 = 150 0.5 300 1008.81 1046.28 3.58
C1 = 150 1 150 905.02 886.68 2.03
C1 = 150 1.3 115.384 786.853 849.848 7.41
C1 = 150 1.5 100 724.073 833.48 13.13
C1 = 150 2 75 610.743 806.88 24.31
C1 = 150 5 30 344.213 759.01 54.65

for C1 /C2 ratio in between 0.45 to1.3. Hence, for C1 /C2 ratio in between 0.45 to 1.3 Bearing
capacity can be evaluated from the theoretical analysis.

53
Figure 6.15: Bearing capacity variation with C1 /C2 ratio from FEM (ABAQUS)

Figure 6.16: Graph showing Bearing capacity curves for two - layered soil

54
Chapter 7

Conclusions

1. The soil was modelled as an elasto - plastic material and computations were carried out
using FEM software, ABAQUS (6.13).

2. The bearing capacity of strip footing on one - layer clayey soil computed from ABAQUS
software and Terzaghi’s analysis are same.

3. For the selected d1 /d2 =0.122 ratio, Df /d1 = 1.5 and C1 /C2 ratios ranges from 0.45 to
1.3, it is observed the bearing capacity values computed from Abaqus are within 7% error
compared to theoretical analysis.

4. In two - layered soil, bearing capacity decreases by increase in C2 value.

5. Therefore, within those ranges of ratios (i.e., C1 /C2 = 0.45 to 1.3), there is no need to go
for FEM analysis.

6. The error is minimum for C1 /C2 ratio in between 0.45 to1.3. Hence, for C1 /C2 ratio in
between 0.45 to 1.3 Bearing capacity can be evaluated from the theoretical analysis.

55
REFERENCES

1. ABAQUS 6.13 (2013) ABAQUS/CAE User’s Manual, Dassault Systems, USA

2. Dr. K.R. Arora, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Geotechnical Engineering)

3. IQBAL H. KHAN, Text Book of Geotechnical Engineering

4. JOSEPH E. BOWLES, P.E., S.E., textbook of Foundation Analysis and Design

5. Ming Zhu, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Two-layer Clay Soil by Finite Element
Method

6. Mohamed I. Ramadan, Mohammed H. Hussien, Bearing Capacity of Sand Overlying Clay

- Strip Footing

7. Mosadegh A and Nikraz H Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University, Aus-

tralia(2015), Bearing Capacity Evaluation of Footing on a Layered - Soil using ABAQUS

56
Appendix

Analysis of Simple Beams in ABAQUS (6.13)

To check the input units, output units and results in the ABAQUS software, simple beams
analysis is performed. SI (m) units are followed for the beams analysis. Comparison of the
analysis results and theoretical solutions shows the same. The example beams considered for
analysis is shown in figures 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5:

Simply Supported Beam with Center Point Load

Figure 7.1: Simply supported beam with center point load

Load, W = 30 KN
Length of beam, L = 6 m
Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200 e 6 KN/m2
bd3 0.12X0.33
Moment of Inertia, I = = = 2.7 X 10−4 m4
12 12
Therefore,
5 W L3 5 30X63
Deflection, D = X = X = 0.0025 m
48 EI 48 200X106 X2.7X10−4

Simply Supported Beam with Uniform Distributed Load

Load, W = 5 KN/m
Length of beam, L = 6 m

57
 Figure 7.2: Simply supported beam with uniform distributed load

Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200 e 6 KN/m2

bd3 0.12X0.33
Moment of Inertia, I = = = 2.7 X 10−4 m4
12 12
Therefore,
5 W L4 5 30X64
Deflection, D = X = X = 0.00156 m
384 EI 384 200X106 X2.7X10−4

Fixed Beam with Uniform Distributed Load

Figure 7.3: Fixed beam with uniform distributed load

Load, W = 5 KN/m
Length of beam, L = 6 m
Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200 e 6 KN/m2
bd3 0.12X0.33
Moment of Inertia, I = = = 2.7 X 10−4 m4
12 12
Therefore,
W L4 30X64
Deflection, D = = = 0.00031 m
384EI 384X200X106 X2.7X10−4

58
 Figure 7.4: Cantilever beam with point load

Cantilever Beam with Point Load

Load, W = 30 KN/m
Length of beam, L = 6 m
Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200 e 6 KN/m2
bd3 0.12X0.33
Moment of Inertia, I = = = 2.7 X 10−4 m4
12 12
Therefore,
W L3 30X63
Deflection, D = = = 0.04 m
8EI 8X200X106 X2.7X10−4

Cantilever Beam with Uniform Distributed Load

Load, W = 5 KN/m
Length of beam, L = 6 m
Modulus of Elasticity, E= 200 e 6 KN/m2
bd3 0.12X0.33
Moment of Inertia, I = = = 2.7 X 10−4 m4
12 12
Therefore,
W L4 5X64
Deflection, D = = = 0.015 m
8EI 8X200X106 X2.7X10−4

Figure 7.5: Cantilever beam with uniform distributed load

59
Deflection Profiles of Beams in ABAQUS (6.13)
The above simple beams are modelled and analysed in the ABAQUS(6.13) software. The
deflection values are compared with the theoretical results. The deflection profiles of different
beams is as shown in the following figures 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10.

Simply supported beam with point load

Figure 7.6: Simply supported beam with point load

60
Simply supported beam with uniform distributed load

Figure 7.7: Simply supported beam with uniform distributed load

Fixed beam with uniform distributed load

Figure 7.8: Fixed beam with uniform distributed load

61
Cantilever beam with point load

Figure 7.9: Cantilever beam with point load

Cantilever beam with uniform distributed load

Figure 7.10: Cantilever beam with uniform distributed load

62
Comparison of Results
The table 7.1 shows the values of deflection beams compared from theory and Abaqus
analysis. The results are showing same.

Table 7.1: Deflection (m) values of beams

FEM (deflection in Theoretical (deflec-

Example beams metres) tion in metres)
0.001529 0.00156
Simply supported beam with UDL
Simply supported beam with center 0.002503 0.0025
point load
0.040010 0.04000
Cantilever beam with point load
0.0003139 0.00031
Fixed beam with UDL
0.01514 0.015
Cantilever beam with UDL

63