See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315827184

Using Finite Element to Modify Winkler Model for Raft Foundation Supported
on Dry Granular Soils

Article  in  International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · April 2017

DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997

CITATIONS READS

0 458

3 authors:

Omar K. Al-Kubaisi Salah R. Al-Zaidee

The University of Sydney University of Baghdad
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aqeel Fadhil
University of Baghdad
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piles under scoured conditions View project

Prediction of Ground Improvement on the behavior of circular footing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Omar K. Al-Kubaisi on 08 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391

Using Finite Element to Modify Winkler Model for

Raft Foundation Supported on Dry Granular Soils
Salah R. Al-Zaidee1, Aqeel T. Fadhil2, Omar K. Al-Kubaisi3
1, 2, 3
The University of Baghdad, College of Engineering, Civil Eng. Department, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract: Winkler foundation is a traditional model that is usually adopted in structural engineering to simulate the stiffness of
underneath soil as decoupled springs with spring constant determined based on plate load test or based on a correlation with soil
bearing capacity. This model leads to a fourth order differential equation. Analytical methods are usually adopted to solve the
differential equation for regular loads and ideal boundary conditions while numerical methods, finite difference or finite element, are
used to solve it for general loads and/or complex boundary conditions. The main drawback of Winkler model is neglecting or at best
implicitly including, when spring constant is determined from correlation with soil bearing capacity, the interaction between adjacent
soil prisms. This is in contrast with soil models adopted in geotechnical engineering which recognize soil shear strength and shear
interaction between adjacent soil prisms. An abrupt change in soil subgrade reaction is usually seen under concentrated loads when
using Winkler foundation and this change may be greater than the allowable soil capacity. With this situation, it is hard to compare the
global behavior simulated by soil bearing capacity with the local behavior in the neighborhood of point loads. In this paper, raft
foundations with regular columns arrangement, and supported by different underneath cohesionless dry soil profiles have been
simulated using traditional Winkler foundation model and 3D finite element models. Linear regression models have been adopted to
modify the results of Winkler model to take into account the aforementioned parameters. With these modifications, designers can
preserve the benefits of Winkler foundation model, usually available in commercial software, while overcoming its drawbacks. Linear
regression analyses applied on the results obtained from the two models show that two soil simulations are significantly correlated with
correlation factors in the range of 0.9. The explanatory parameters adopted in regression analysis were raft dimensions, raft thickness,
and material properties for both soil and concrete.

Keywords: Winkler Foundation Model, Raft Foundation, Finite Element Model, Granular Soil

1. Introduction
One of the earliest models that simulate the soil flexibility
beneath the foundation is the Winkler model. This model
simulates the soil as a series of uncoupled elastic linear
springs, that is, the deformations do not affect the
neighboring springs. Winkler foundation was first introduced
in 1867 by Dr. E. Winkler professor at the Technical
University in Prague, see [1]. Since then, Winkler foundation
has been widely used among structural and geotechnical
engineers due to its reliability and convince [2]. However,
the lack of including the shear coupling between the adjacent Figure 1: Raft foundation subjected to column concentrated
soil prisms somewhat reduces the efficiency of Winkler loads
model and makes the engineers favor the use of finite
element soil simulation for the sake of obtaining results that The goal of this study is to modify Winkler model to develop
are more precise. a more accurate, yet a simple linear model, that include the
shear coupling and interaction between nearby soil particles.
The divergence between the results obtained from Winkler
model and those obtained from actual soil behavior becomes
clearer when soil is subjected to concentered point or line 2. Finite Element Modeling
loads. Consider for example a raft shown in Figure 1 where
soil reactions are concentrated at supporting columns and Finite element models for different case studies are prepared
high shear forces are generated in soil mass there. For this in terms of parameters indicated in Figure 2.
type of foundation, Winkler assumption seems unrealistic
and may lead to adopt deep foundation due to the localized
overestimated stresses under point loads.

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20171997 DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997 130
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
A mesh size not greater than 0.5m is adopted in the finite
element models for shell and brick element. This size is
adequate to capture main features of the behavior [4]. With
finite element discretization, equilibrium, compatibility, and
constitutive relations for columns, raft foundation, and
Winkler springs or soil mass are represented by (1) below:
K nn dn1  f n1 (1)
where:
n is the total DOF for the system which is equal to:
dof per node  No. of Nodes .
K  is the global stiffness matrix generated from elements
stiffness assemblage according to a direct stiffness algorithm.
f  is the consistent nodal load vector that is determined
from the applied loads.

2.2 Boundary conditions

Figure 2: Case study parameters
With Winkler springs, stiffness matrix, K , of (1) above is
2.1 Geometry and element types already positive definite and has a unique solution [5]. While
based on soil simulation with brick element, the stiffness
For each case study, two models are adopted. In the first matrix is semi-definite and boundary conditions should be
model, soil is simulated through Winkler springs, Figure 3, added for stable system. Therefore, all translational DOF
while a brick element is used to simulate soil mass for the located on virtual sides and bottom surface where soil is
second model, Figure 4. In the second model, underneath soil isolated are restrained to obtain a positive definite stiffness
is isolated from semi-infinite soil mass at distance equal to matrix and to simulate the vanish of soil deformations at
overall foundation width "B" from each side of the footing regions far from the loaded raft.
and at a depth of 2B. According to the theory of elasticity,
about 50% of stresses due to uniform surface loads can be 2.3 Material properties
accommodated within these boundaries [3].
Concrete and soil are both simulated as linear isotropic
materials that obey Hooke's law. Two parameters, namely,
elastic modulus, E , and Poisson ratio,  , are defined while
shear modulus, G , has been determined from the following
relation between the three elastic parameters, [6]:
E
G (2)
2(1   )
According to [7], concrete elastic modulus, Ec , is
determined based on(3) below, while a Poisson ratio of 0.2
has been adopted according to recommendation of [8] for
Figure 3: Finite element model with Winkler Foundation stresses far from concrete collapse stage.

Ec  4700 f c' (3)

where f c' is cylindrical compressive strength of concrete in
MPa. A value of 28 MPa is adopted in this study.

As it is difficult to gather undisturbed specimens for

cohesionless soils, their stiffness and strength properties are
usually related to the results of the standard penetration test,
SPT [3]. According to [9], elastic modulus of granular soils
can be related to standard penetration number, N , based on
following relation:
Es  10 pa N (4)
where p a is the atmospheric pressure, approximately equal
Figure 4: Finite element model with brick element to to 100 kPa .
simulate soil
According to [9], Poisson ratio for cohesionless soils,  s ,
In both models, space frame element is used to simulate the
can be related to its angle of internal friction,  , based on (5)
elastic concrete columns where point loads are acting, while
shell element is used to simulate the raft foundation. below. While [10] recommend the relation indicated in (6)

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20171997 DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997 131
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
below to correlate the angle of internal friction,  , to SPT angle of internal friction,  , both can be expressed in terms
value. Two equations indicate an indirect relation between of the coefficient of subgrade reaction, k s . On the other
soil Poisson ratio,  s , and SPT values. hand, foundation stiffness can be expressed in terms of
   25  foundation dimensions, B and L , foundation thickness, h ,
 s  0.1  0.3  (5)
 20  concrete elastic modulus, Ec , and concrete Poisson ratio,
c .
  27.1  0.3N  0.00054N 2 (6)
Considering the aforementioned parameters, problem
According to [11], coefficient of subgrade reaction, k s , can dependent and independent variations can be expressed in
terms of functions f and g presented in (10) and (11)
be related to soil allowable bearing capacity, qallowable , based
below.
on (7) below.
q1   
 f  Ec , c , k s , L, B, h  (10)
k s  40 FS qallowable (7) q2  s 

Soil allowable bearing capacity is either determined based on M1   

requirements of global shear failure or based on local shear  g  Ec , c , k s , L, B, h  (11)
failure and settlement failure [12]. Due to its dimensions, M2  s 
allowable bearing capacity for raft foundation is usually where: q1 and M1 are respectively the maximum subgrade
determined based on settlement requirements [13]. reaction and foundation maximum bending moment
determined with three-dimensional soil simulation. q2 and
According to [9], allowable bearing capacity for cohesionless
soils can be related to SPT value based on the following M 2 are respectively the maximum subgrade reaction and
relation: foundation maximum bending moment determined with
N  Se  Winkler soil simulation.
q allowable    (8)
0.08  25  As raft foundation is usually designed as an isotropic slab to
where S e is the allowable settlement in mm. avoid possible differential settlement, therefore locations
where maximum settlement and maximum moment occur are
As raft footings are relatively rigid and can bridge possible not included in the basic relations [16].
pockets in soil mass, an allowable settlement in the range of
50mm is usually recommended [14]. Based on this In the sub articles below, dimensional analysis is used to
settlement range, (8) above is reduced to the formula rewrite (10) and (11) above in term of dimensionless groups.
indicated in(9) below: With these dimensionless groups, analysis is simplified as
qallowable  25 N (9) the number of variables is reduced and the case studies are
ensured to be significantly different.
2.4 Applied loads
3.2 Number of independent dimensionless groups
As indicated in Figure 1, all applied loads are concentrated
column loads. Loads with this nature can simulate practical According to  theorem, [17], the number of independent
problems and emphasize the role of shear force between soil groups that may be employed to described a phenomenon
prisms that are neglected using Winkler model and included known to involve n variables is equal to n  r , where r is
through soil mass models. the number of basic dimensions needed to express the
variables dimensionally.
Loads are assumed proportional, where axial load on an
interior column is twice the axial load acting on edge For this study, as all variables can be expressed in terms of
columns and four times the load acting on corner columns. force dimension, F , and length dimension, L , therefore r
The proposed load proportionality indirectly reflects the is two and number of dimensionless groups is:
stiffness of superstructure and compensates its absence from nr  52  3 (12)
the finite element models of this study [14].
3.3 Dimensionless Groups
3. Dimensional Analysis
Let the relation in (10) above be continuous and with
3.1 Basic Relations adopting first terms of its infinite series expansion,
dimensional relation indicated in (12) below is obtained:
Related literature indicate that the distribution of subgrade a b
 F   F 
reaction is a function of the stiffness of raft foundation and 0      L c L d L e
  
the stiffness of the supporting soil [15]. Soil stiffness is a  L2   L3  (12)
function of its elastic modulus, E s , angle of internal friction,
 , and Poisson ratio,  s . The elastic modulus, E s , and the

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20171997 DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997 132
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
By equating both sides of (12) above according to the law of Input Data Results (Soil Mass)
dimensional homogeneity, the following set of simultaneous L B σzz Mxx Myy
N60
equations is formulated: (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN.m/m) (kN.m/m)
20 40 10 48.46 -372.40 -396.64
For force F: 20 50 10 48.44 -372.44 -396.70
ab  0 (13) 30 10 10 45.90 -380.93 -380.93
30 20 10 49.83 -367.25 -387.19
For length L: 30 30 10 49.33 -365.72 -387.36
2a  3b  c  d  e  0 (14) 30 40 10 49.24 -365.86 -387.37
30 50 10 49.24 -365.88 -387.37
It can be shown simply that following dimensionless 40 10 10 46.52 -375.41 -375.41
groups satisfy above equations. 40 20 10 51.12 -362.06 -380.38
40 30 10 50.51 -361.23 -380.38
a  b 40 40 10 50.45 -361.35 -380.35
40 50 10 50.45 -361.36 -380.35
c bd e 50 10 10 47.85 -370.81 -370.81
50 20 10 52.87 -358.09 -374.76
In terms of dimensionless groups, (10) above would be as 50 30 10 52.14 -357.66 -374.62
indicated in (15) below 50 40 10 52.11 -357.77 -374.64
b 50 50 10 52.12 -357.78 -374.63
q1  k s  L    c   B  d  h  e
        (15)
q 2  Ec    s   L   L  Table 2: Parameters for case studies and the corresponding
    results for Winkler model
Input Data Results (Winkler Model)
In the same approach, non-dimensional relations for L B Subgrade Reaction Mxx Myy
maximum bending moment in the raft foundation is N60
(m) (m) ( kN/m2) (kN.m/m) (kN.m/m)
presented in (17) below. 10 10 10 61.64 -343.25 -343.25
b' 10 20 10 60.68 -341.44 -343.45
M1  k s  L    c   B  d '  h  e'
        (16) 10 30 10 60.70 -341.43 -343.17
M 2  Ec    s   L   L  10 40 10 60.70 -341.43 -343.17
   
10 50 10 60.70 -341.43 -343.17
20 10 10 76.46 -344.80 -344.80
As indicated in below, based on data generated from finite 20 20 10 75.69 -341.16 -344.63
element analyses, a regression analysis is used to determine 20 30 10 75.95 -341.23 -344.63
the coefficients b' through e' . 20 40 10 75.95 -341.23 -344.64
20 50 10 75.95 -341.23 -344.64
4. Case Studies and Results 30 10 10 88.30 -343.08 -343.08
30 20 10 88.12 -339.28 -342.90
With referring to Error! Reference source not found., 30 30 10 88.12 -339.30 -342.90
parameters for different case studies and the corresponding 30 40 10 88.12 -339.30 -342.90
results for two types of finite element simulations are 30 50 10 88.12 -339.30 -342.90
presented in 40 10 10 98.48 -340.57 -340.57
40 20 10 98.48 -336.95 -340.38
Table 1 and Table 2, where: 40 30 10 98.47 -336.95 -340.38
 zz is soil pressure based on simulation of soil mass, 40 40 10 98.47 -336.95 -340.38
40 50 10 98.47 -336.95 -340.38
M xx is bending moment that produces stresses along
50 10 10 107.44 -337.88 -337.88
foundation length, L , 50 20 10 107.53 -334.55 -337.69
M yy is bending moment that produces stresses along 50 30 10 107.53 -334.54 -337.69
foundation width, B . 50 40 10 107.53 -334.54 -337.69
50 50 10 107.53 -334.54 -337.69
Table 1: Parameters for case studies and the corresponding
results of Soil Mass model During these case studies, variations in non-dimensional
Input Data Results (Soil Mass) parameters of B / L and h / L have been achieved through
L B σzz Mxx Myy increasing raft length, L , from 10m to 50m with an
N60
(m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN.m/m) (kN.m/m) increment of 10m while both raft width, B , and raft
10 10 10 47.68 -398.81 -398.81 thickness, h , have been kept constant with values of 10m
10 20 10 47.89 -403.87 -409.69 and 0.5m respectively.
10 30 10 48.44 -384.65 -410.28
10 40 10 48.79 -384.93 -410.41 Non-dimensional parameters related to materials stiffness,
10 50 10 48.70 -385.07 -410.55 namely (k s L) / Ec and  c / s , have been varied through
20 10 10 46.11 -388.15 -388.15
changing soil properties as a function of SPT value and
20 20 10 48.83 -377.09 -396.20
20 30 10 48.91 -372.20 -396.56
Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20171997 DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997 133
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
keeping concrete properties constant with compressive included in the finite element model. From (17) and Error!
strength of f c ' equal to 28 MPa. Reference source not found.),  q factor will be:
In terms of non-dimensional groups of (15) and (16), results

 
have been reduced to those presented in Error! Reference  k L   B h
source not found. Error! Reference source not found.,  q   q 0   q1  s    q 2  c
   q3   q4 (18)
 c E  
 s L L
where the subscript "1" indicates results of finite element
model with soil mass, while the subscript "2" indicates
results of finite element model with Winkler foundation. The In the same approach, bending moments determined from
results indicate that Winkler model overestimates subgrade two models can be related as follows:
reactions while underestimates pertained bending moments
in the foundation.
 k L   
 Mx   Mx0   Mx1  s    Mx2  c    Mx3
 Ec  s 
B
L

  Mx4
h
L

(19)

 
Table 3: Results for different case studies in terms of
 k L    B h
pertained non-dimensional groups  My   My0   My1  s    My 2  c    My3   My 4
 E    s L L
c (20)
q1 M xx1 M yy1 ks L c B h
q2 M xx 2 M yy 2 Ec s L L Using the data of Error! Reference source not found.
0.774 1.162 1.162 0.010 1.138 1.000 0.050 Error! Reference source not found., regression
0.789 1.183 1.193 0.020 1.138 0.500 0.025 coefficients,  s , presented in Table below have been
0.798 1.127 1.196 0.030 1.138 0.333 0.017
determined by the method of least squares, [18]. Values of
0.804 1.127 1.196 0.040 1.138 0.250 0.013
0.802 1.128 1.196 0.050 1.138 0.200 0.010 correlation coefficient, R 2 , indicate that there are strong
0.603 1.126 1.126 0.020 0.916 1.000 0.050 linear relations between results of the two models.
0.645 1.105 1.150 0.040 0.916 0.500 0.025
0.644 1.091 1.151 0.060 0.916 0.333 0.017 Table 4: Regression coefficients for linear models of (18),
0.638 1.091 1.151 0.080 0.916 0.250 0.013 (19), and (20)
0.638 1.091 1.151 0.101 0.916 0.200 0.010 Regression Average Value determined by the
coefficient method of least squares R2
0.520 1.110 1.110 0.030 0.772 1.000 0.050
0.565 1.082 1.129 0.060 0.772 0.500 0.025  q0 0.130
0.560 1.078 1.130 0.090 0.772 0.333 0.017  q1 0.023
0.559 1.078 1.130 0.121 0.772 0.250 0.013
0.559 1.078 1.130 0.151 0.772 0.200 0.010 q2 0.589 0.982
0.472 1.102 1.102 0.040 0.670 1.000 0.050  q3 0.185
0.519 1.075 1.118 0.080 0.670 0.500 0.025
0.513 1.072 1.118 0.121 0.670 0.333 0.017 q4 -4.62
0.512 1.072 1.117 0.161 0.670 0.250 0.013  Mx0 0.929
0.512 1.072 1.117 0.201 0.670 0.200 0.010
0.445 1.097 1.097 0.050 0.595 1.000 0.050
 Mx1 0.135
0.492 1.070 1.110 0.101 0.595 0.500 0.025  Mx2 0.159 0.892
0.485 1.069 1.109 0.151 0.595 0.333 0.017  Mx3 0.416
0.485 1.069 1.109 0.201 0.595 0.250 0.013
0.485 1.069 1.109 0.251 0.595 0.200 0.010  Mx4 -7.149
 My0 1.052
5. Regression Analysis  My1 -0.078

To modify the results of traditional Winkler model to those  My2 0.134 0.972
determined based on finite element simulation of soil mass,  My3 0.138
linear regression model presented in (17) below is proposed
for subgrade reactions:  My4 -3.536
q1
q2 q 0 q1
  
 Ec 
 
 k s  L     c   B   h
 q 2    q3 L q 4 L
 s
(17) 6. Conclusions

By the definition of q1 and q2 as subgrade reactions In an attempt to modify traditional Winkler model to take
shear forces between adjacent soil prisms into account in
determined based on simulation of soil mass and based on computing subgrade reactions and bending moments in raft
Winkler model respectively, (17) above can be re-written as foundations, two finite element soil simulations have been
indicated in Error! Reference source not found.) Error! considered in this study. In the first model, Winkler
Reference source not found.: simulation has been adopted while in the second one soil
q1   q q2 (19) mass has been simulated with brick finite element.
where  q is a modification factor that relates the subgrade
Linear regression analyses indicate that results of two models
reactions computed based on Winkler model to more
are significantly correlated in such a way that results of
accurate values that can be determined if soil mass is
Winkler model can be modified to predicate the more

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20171997 DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997 134
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
accurate results without including soil mass in the finite
element model.

Foundations considered in this study are raft foundations Aqeel T. Fadhil earned his B.Sc. degree in civil
engineering in 2007 from the University of Baghdad
with regular columns layout and supported on dry /Iraq. In late 2012, he obtained his M.Sc. degree in
cohesionless soils. civil engineering from the University of Missouri-
Columbia /USA. He has been working as a faculty member at the
References University of Baghdad since 2008.

[1] Fryba, L., “History of Winkler Foundation,” Vehicle Omar K. Al-Kubaisi received his B.Sc. in civil
System Dynamics: International Journal of Vehicle engineering with first rank from the University of
Baghdad (Iraq) in 2009. In 2014, he received his M.Sc.
Mechanics and Mobility, 24:sup1, 7-12, 1995. with Honor degree in civil engineering from the
[2] Rao, N. S., Foundation Design Theory and Practice, University of Kansas (USA). Furthermore, he involved in practice
John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2011. of civil engineering in general and structural/geotechnical
[3] Lambe, T. W., & Whitman, R. V., Soil Mechanics, SI engineering in particular. Since 2011, he is a faculty member in the
Version. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1979. Civil Engineering Department/University of Baghdad.
[4] Cook, R. D., Finite Element Modeling for Stress
Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1995.
[5] Bathe, K. J., Finite Element Procedures. PHI Learning
Private Limited, 1996.
[6] Popov, E. P., Introduction to Mechanics of Solids.
Prentice-Hall Inc., 1968.
[7] ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-08) and Commentary. American
Concrete Institute, 2008.
[8] Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., & Dolan, C. W., Design of
Concrete Structure, McGraw-Hill, 2010.
[9] Das, B. M., Principles of Foundation Engineering, 7th
Edition. CENGAGE Learning, 2011.
[10] Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., & Thornburn, T. H.,
Foundation Engineering, Second Edition. John Wiley
and Sons Inc., 1974.
[11] Bowles, J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th
Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[12] Coduto, D. P., Foundation Design, Principles and
Practices, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, 2001.
[13] Budhu, M., Foundation and Earth Retaining Structures.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2008.
[14] Varghese, P. C., Foundation Engineering. PHI Learning
Private Limited, 2005.
[15] Hetenyi, M., Beams on Elastic Foundation, Theory with
Applications in the Fields of Civil and Mechanical
Engineering. The University of Michigan Press, 1946.
[16] ACI336.2R., Suggested Analysis and Design
Procedures for Combined Footings and Mats, ACI,
1988.
[17] Shames, I. H., Mechanics of Fluids, 4th Edition,
McGraw-Hill, 2003.
[18] Kottegoda, N. T., & Rosso, R., Applied Statistics for
Civil and Environmental Engineers, 2nd Edition,
Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

Authors Profile
Salah R. Al-Zaidee received his B. Sc. in civil
engineering with first rank from the University of
Baghdad in 1998. While he received his M. Sc. and Ph.
D. degrees in structural engineering from the
University of Baghdad in 2001 and 2007 respectively.
Since 2001, he involved in teaching, research, and practice of civil
engineering in general and structural engineering in particular.
Since 2000, he is a faculty member in the Civil Engineering
Department/University of Baghdad.

Volume 6 Issue 4, April 2017

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20171997
View publication stats DOI: 10.21275/ART20171997 135