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

net/publication/289029276

Fast Estimation of the Influence Zone Depth inside the Subsoil in Relation to the
Various Shapes of Footing

Article · January 2008

CITATION READS

1 2,955

3 authors, including:

Pavel Kuklik Miroslav Brouček

Czech Technical University in Prague Czech Technical University in Prague
46 PUBLICATIONS 132 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Tools for reliable design and construction of tunnels in urban development with emphasis on safety and lifetime View project

Subsoil Influenced by Groundwater Flow View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pavel Kuklik on 16 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
The 12 International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Fast Estimation of the Influence Zone Depth inside the Subsoil in

Relation to the Various Shapes of Footing

P. Kuklík
Department of mechanics, CTU in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Republic

M. Kopáčková
Department of mathematics, CTU in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Republic

M. Brouček
Department of mechanics, CTU in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Republic

Keywords: pre-consolidation pressure, influence zone, Kantorovich method, fundamental solution,

layered subsoil, geostatic stress state

ABSTRACT: For the calculation of foundation settlement it is recommended to take into account so called
influence zone inside the subsoil bellow the carrying structure. Influence zone inside the subsoil is the region
where the load has a substantial influence on the deformation of the soil skeleton. The soil skeleton is pre-
consolidated or over consolidated due to the original geostatic stress state. An excavation changes the original
geostatic stress state and it gives the space for loads passed from upper structure. The theory of layered subsoil
in Westergard manner is selected for the vertical stress calculation. The depth of influence zone is calculated
from the condition, that the original geostatic stress is equal to the new geostatic stress due to excavation plus
the vertical stress influenced by the loads of upper structure. The way, how to estimate the depth of influence
zone, is expressed in the graphs. The contribution further introduces a distinction between four shapes of footing
types regions of surcharge, namely stripe, rectangle, square and circle. The effect of influence zone is also
presented on the curves of load transmission. The several in situ tests were carried out to verify the governing
idea of the proposed theory.

1 Introduction
It is an experimentally confirmed fact that a soil substantially changes its material properties when subjected to
external loading. Apart from that, the soil, when subjected to a certain loading history, has the ability to memorize
the highest level of loading mathematically represented by over-consolidation ratio. In virgin state the soil
deformability is relatively high. On the contrary, following the unloading/reloading path shows almost negligible
deformation until the highest stress state the soil has experienced ever before is reached (Bowles (1966), Kuklík
et al. (1999), Janda et al. (2004)). When using standard recommendations (EUROCODE 7 (1997)) in the design,
e.g. in the analysis of settlement of foundation subsoil, such a soil property is introduced by specifying the depth
of influence zone. It is expected that a reliable estimate of this quantity can follow from detailed numerical
analysis furnished with a suitable constitutive model such as the modified Cam clay model (details in Lewis and
Schrefler (1998)). Such a complex analysis, however, is in direct contradiction with the use of simplified but
efficient calculations based on standards. It is therefore imperative to search for an analytical solution that
provides the required depth of influence zone in a fraction of time. This is the main goal of the presented
contribution. Obviously, for the analytical model to be reliable in describing the soil-structure interaction it is
crucial to replace the usual semi-infinite subspace by a layer of finite depth that is determined by the magnitude of
instantaneous loading and the level of previous consolidation (more in Kuklík and Kopáčková (2004)).

2 Elastic solution of the layer in the Westergard manner assumptions

The aim of the analytical solution is to determine a deformation of an elastic layer in the vertical direction. The
solution procedure builds upon neglecting the horizontal displacements similar to standard assumptions applied
to the analysis of Westergard subspace. Cleary such an assumption results in a stiffer soil response thus
providing an upper estimation of the depth of influence zone. The problem formulation is evident from Figure 1.

281
Referring to the Kantorovich method (details in Rektorys (1969)) the distribution of the displacement field
is searched in the form
∞
w(x; y; z ) = ∑ w (x; y )ψ (z ) ,
j j
j =1, 3, 5 (1)
jπ
ψ j ( z ) = cos z ,
2H

where ψ is a known function of variable z and represents a complete set of base functions.

Figure 1. Formulation of the elastic layer solution

Let us calculate the components of the small strain tensor. Small strain tensor is the symmetrical part of the
gradient matrix tensor. From statement (1) yields:
∞ ∞ ∞
ε xx = 0 , ε yy = 0 , ε zz = ∑w ψ
j =1, 3, 5
j j,z , γ xy = 2ε xy = 0 , γ yz = 2ε yz = ∑w
j =1, 3,5
ψ j , γ zx = 2ε zx =
j, y ∑w
j =1, 3, 5
ψj .
j,x
(2)

Notation
∂w j
= w j , x is used for partial derivative.
∂x
For stress-strain relation, general Hooke’s law is adopted:
ν ∞
ν ∞ ∞
σ xx =
1 −ν
E oed ∑w ψ
j =1, 3, 5
j j,z , σ yy =
1 −ν
E oed ∑w ψ
j =1, 3, 5
j j,z , σ zz = E oed ∑w ψ
j =1, 3, 5
j j,z ,
(3)
∞ ∞
τ xy = Gγ xy = 0 , τ yz = G ∑w
j =1, 3, 5
ψ j , τ zx = G
j, y ∑w
j =1, 3, 5
j,x ψj .

Symbols E , ν , Eoed , G represent known values of Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, oedometric modulus, and
shear modulus, respectively. Lagrange’s principle of virtual work, general principle of equilibrium, is used in the
following form:

⎛ ⎛ ∂w ∂δw ∂w ∂δw ∂w ∂δw ⎞ ⎞

⎟⎟dz − f z ( x, y )δw(x, y,0)⎟⎟dxdy = 0 .
H
∫ ⎜⎜⎝ ∫
R2 0
⎜⎜ G
⎝ ∂x ∂x
+G
∂y ∂y
+ E oed
∂z ∂z ⎠ ⎠
(4)

Since the virtual functions δw will be used in the same form as w , integrating equilibrium equation in vertical
direction takes the form of infinite numbers of partial differential equations:

π E oed π 2 − 2ν
− Δw j ( x, y ) + ( jα ) w j ( x, y ) = f z ( x, y ), j = 1,3,5,... , α =
2
= (5)
2
.
GH 2H G 2H 1 − 2ν

Equation (5) has the fundamental solution

282
 F j ( x, y ) =
1
2π
(
K 0 jα x 2 + y 2 , ) (6)

where K 0 is the modified Bessel function of zero order (see Gradstein and Rizhik (1963)). If [x,y] is inner point of
the region Ω , for the solution of the equation (5) we can write:

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛⎜ ⎛ ∂F j ∂F j ⎞⎞
2

dξ ⎟⎟ ⎟, for [x,y ]∈ Ω,
2 fz
w j ( x, y ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 1 + ∫ ⎜⎜ dη −
⎝ α ⎜
⎠ ⎝ ∂Ω ∂ξ ∂η ⎟
GH j ⎝ ⎠⎠ (7)
⎛ ∂F j ∂F j
2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎞
⎜ ∂ξ dη − ∂η dξ ⎟, for [x,y ]∈ R \ (Ω ∪ ∂Ω ).
2 fz
w j ( x, y ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ 2

GH ⎝ jα ⎠ ∂Ω
⎝ ⎠

Finally the stress function takes the form

jπ ⎛ jπz ⎞
σ z (x, y, z ) = E oed ∑ w j ( x, y ) sin ⎜ ⎟. (8)
j =1, 3,.. 2 H ⎝ 2H ⎠

3 Stress transmission in the subsoil by means of Westergard and Boussinesq

Let us consider a uniform loading on rectangle of the dimensions 2a, 2b (a ≤ b ), i.e.
Ω = {[x, y ] : − a < x < a, − b < y < b} . Using formula (7) we can write

2
2 fz ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ ⎡ ⎛ a⎞ ⎛ b ⎞⎤ ⎞
w j (0,0 ) =
j
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜1 − 4 ⎢ f j ⎜ b, b ⎟ + f j ⎜ a, a ⎟⎥ ⎟⎟ ,
GH ⎝ jα ⎠ ⎝ 2π ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎠ (9)

f j ( p, q ) = α p ∫
q
(
K 1 jα p t + 1 2
)dt .
0 t +12

K1 is the modified Bessel function of the first order. The value of w j (x, y ) at a general point of rectangle is the
sum of corresponding values at the corners of four rectangles, which we get from the original one dividing by the
vertical and horizontal lines crossing at [x, y ] . This fact is expressed in the following identity

2
2 fz ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ a+ x⎞ ⎛ b− y⎞ ⎛ a− x⎞ ⎛ b− y⎞
w j ( x, y ) =
j
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1 − [ f j ⎜⎜ b − y, ⎟⎟ + f j ⎜ a + x, ⎟ + f j ⎜⎜ b − y, ⎟⎟ + f j ⎜ a − x, ⎟+
GH ⎝ jα ⎠ 2π ⎝ b− y⎠ ⎝ a + x⎠ ⎝ b− y⎠ ⎝ a− x⎠ (10)
⎛ a− x⎞ ⎛ b+ y⎞ ⎛ a+ x⎞ ⎛ b+ y⎞
f j ⎜⎜ b + y, ⎟⎟ + f j ⎜ a − x, ⎟ + f j ⎜⎜ b + y, ⎟ + f j ⎜ a + x, ⎟]) .
⎝ b+ y⎠ ⎝ a− x⎠ ⎝ b + y ⎟⎠ ⎝ a+ x⎠

The most important is vertical stress course in the centre of rectangle. It can be considered as the maximum.
Combining (8), (9) we obtain

jπ ⎛ jπz ⎞ 4 f z jπz 8 fz ⎛ ⎛ a⎞ ⎛ b ⎞⎞ jπz

σ z (0,0, z ) = E oed w j (0,0 )sin ⎜
1
∑ ⎟=
⎝ 2H ⎠ π
∑ j sin 2H − π ∑ ⎜⎜ f 2 j ⎜ b, ⎟ + f j ⎜ a, ⎟ ⎟⎟ sin
⎝ b⎠ ⎝ a ⎠⎠
. (11)
j =1, 3,.. 2 H 1, 3,... ⎝
1, 3,... 2H

In Figure 2. is compared Boussinesq solution (detail can be seen in Davis and Selvadurai (1996)) with the elastic
layer solution for given depth of influence zone. In the first case the width of the rectangle is the same
like the depth of influence zone, in the second case the depth of influence zone is two and half higher.

283
 Figure 2. Comparing Boussinesq and elastic layer solution

Figure 3. Influence of Poisson ratio on the vertical stress course

The last figure of this part shows the effect of Poisson ratio for uniform load acting in the square.
The Boussinesq solution is derived as a half space forν = 0.5 . It causes at the first vertical derivative at the top of
the half space, at the second the course of vertical stress decreases rapidly. In the case of layer it is seen, that
for higher Poisson ration is also higher stiffness of layer.

284
4 Estimation of the influence zone depth
In the Figure 4. is introduced the governing idea of influence zone calculation. Due to excavation appears

Figure 4. The governing idea of the influence zone calculation

the space for upper structure loading. The depth of influence zone is described by the point where the vertical
stress due to surcharge reaches the value γh . Let us introduce the function

⎛ βπb ⎞
⎜ ⎟
βπb βπ ⎞ 4
2
2⎛ ⎛a⎞
F (β ) = ⎜ arctan
1
arctan sinh ⎜ 2a 2 ⎟
1

π⎝ 2a
+ arctan ⎟−
2 ⎠ π2 ∫ 0 2 ⎜ 1− t2
⎜ ⎟ + 1 − t dt −
⎝b⎠ ⎟
⎛a⎞ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ +1− t
2
⎝ ⎠ (12)
⎝b⎠
⎛ βπ ⎞
⎜ 2 ⎟
4 1 ⎛b⎞
arctan sinh ⎜ 2 2 ⎟
1
−
π2 ∫
0 2 ⎜ 1− t2
⎜ ⎟ + 1 − t dt ,
⎝a⎠ ⎟
⎛b⎞ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ +1− t
2
⎝ ⎠
⎝a⎠
where

2αa a 2 − 2ν
β= = . (13)
π H 1 − 2ν

The maximum stress below the centre of rectangle in the depth H can be then expressed in following form

σ z (0,0, H ) = f z F (β ) = γh . (14)

As the value of preconsolidation γh and the level of surcharge f z are known, we can in inverse way explain
the value β . The following formula describes this statement and the idea how to calculate the depth of influence
zone

γh 2 − 2ν
= F (β ) → β =
a
→H. (15)
fz H 1 − 2ν
b
Functions F (β ) for some quotients a are presented in Figure 5. To complete all types of basic shapes we
added on the left hand side the figure of the function Fr (β ) . This function is valid for the case where the uniform
load is acting in circle. For the back analysis was introduced adequate equation as for the rectangle

285
 γh 2 − 2ν
= Fr (β ) → β =
r
→H. (16)
fz H 1 − 2ν

Figure 5. Courses of F (β ) functions

We promised estimation of influence zone depth for the basic areas as rectangle, square, strip and circle. Only
for rectangle was briefly presented the derivation of the vertical stress course. The simplest solutions for strip and
circle are not introduced in this article. However, from the technical point of view we can note, that there is no real
difference between solutions of a circle and the square of the same area and there is no substantial difference
between solution of strip and rectangle, where b >> a .

5 In situ verification
Several in situ tests were carried out to verify the proposed theory. For standard back analysis of the secant
modulus of deformation of soil the Boussinesq formula is widely used

π ⎛ f r⎞
E0 = (
1 − ν )⎜⎜
2

s ⎟
⎟ z (16)
2 ⎝ tot ⎠

The symbols in formula, except of settlement stot and the radius of circle r, were introduced upwards. This should
be used when the influence zone has a sufficient (pseudo infinite) depth. For the small plate (2r=357 mm)
loaded by 1000 kPa the influence zone is H= 60 cm; almost “infinite” compared with radius; and Boussinesq
formula can be adopted. Calculation yields to the values of deformation modulus (tests Z2, Z3)
E0 (Edef) = 80 -100 MPa. Measured data are listed in table 1. The values should be a little bit higher, but
acceptable. Poisson ratio for this kind of soil (gravel with a trace of fines) was chosen ν = 0.25. The big plate
(2r=798 mm) using Boussinesq formula gives E0 (Edef) = 170 MPa, when the same influence zone is reached

286
 Figure 6. In situ testing facilities

by the load 366 kPa. In this case, the depth of the influence zone is not sufficient (more in Kuklík (2006)).
Employing professional FEM code ADINA 8.1 (ADINA 8.1 (2004)) we get the results of the plate load test
numerically (geometry was adopted from the test Z1 and physical, compliance, parameters from tests Z2, Z3).
The settlement was calculated 0,97 mm for the big rigid plate (E0 = 80 MPa) and 1,21 mm for the big rigid plate
(E0 = 100 MPa); settlement in average is 1,09 mm. Comparing with reality the result (1.09 versus 1.27 mm)
should be quite accepted. Small discrepancy should be explained as follows. The first overestimation of the
secant modulus is due to back analysis using Boussinesq formula, secondly there is a shear lack inside the soil
on boundary the rigid plate. Anyway, disposing the whole data from standard Z1 test back analysis we obtain
unreal settlement. In the future work we would like to focus on the estimation of the plastic region, it is small and
directly bellow the plate, and can be described by additional small plastic zone depth.

Table 1. Results of in situ testing

Force Uniform load Time Settlement Secant modulus
[kN] [kPa] [minute] [mm] [MPa]
2
Rigid plate loading tests results A = 0.5 m , r = 399 mm Z1 (the first test)
150 300 20 1.11 158.8
183 366 20 1.27 169.3
2
Rigid plate loading tests results A = 0.1 m , r = 178.5 mm Z2 (the second test)
100 1000 15 3.15 83.3
120 1200 15 3.93 80.3
2
Rigid plate loading tests results A = 0.1 m , r = 178.5 mm Z3 (the third test)
80 800 25 2.02 104.1
100 1000 15 2.49 105.6

6 Conclusion
It was shown that an extremely fast estimation of the depth of influence zone could be provided by the present
solution (Figure 5). Applicability of the proposed approach was confirmed further by the numerical analysis using
the FEM. On the assumption that the horizontal displacement is denied the calculation seems to be in a good

287
 agreement with the conditions inside the subsoil below the foundations slabs in the deep holes. In addition, the
in situ tests demonstrated the necessity of the reflection of the influence zone in back analysis of rigid plate load
tests, namely in the onset of the experiment when the load is small and acting “only on the surface of subsoil”.
There should be necessary to take into account also technological processes, the soil calls for compaction in the
beginning of the placing the concrete of the future slab. On the other hand for higher load will be necessary to
estimate the region of the plastic lack. In this region the load will be transmitted without shear spreading and the
depth of influence must be a little bit higher.

7 Acknowledgements
Financial support for this project was provided by research project MSM 6840770001

8 References
Bowles, J. E. (1966). Foundation analysis and design, McGraw-Hill, New York
EUROCODE 7 (1997) General rules-spread foundations, geotechnical design, Prague, 1997.
Davis R.O., Selvadurai A. P. S. Elasticity and geomechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1996, 112-130.
Gradschtein I.S., Rizhik I.M. (1963), Tables of integrals, sums, series and product. (in Russian) Moscow, 1963
Janda, T., Kuklík, P., and Šejnoha, M. (2004), Mixed Experimental and Numerical Approach to Evaluation of Material
Parameters of Clayey soils, International Journal of Geomechanics, 2004, vol. 4, no. 3, s. 199-206.
Kuklík P., Šejnoha M., Mareš J. 1999. The structural strength of soil from the isotropic consolidation point of view, APCOM 99,
Singapore, (1999), pp. 797-802.
Kuklík P, M. Kopáčková M. (2004), Comparison of elastic layer solution with Boussinesq half space solution. (in Czech),
StavebníObzor, CTU in Prague, 2004, 6, pp.171-175.
Kuklík P. (2006) Several Comments on Influence Zone Depth Progress in Deep Hole Foundations In: Underground
Construction and Ground Movement, proceedings of the GeoShanghai Conference 2006. Reston, Virginia: ASCE, 2006, s.
355-362.
Lewis R.W., Schrefler B. A. (1998), The finite element method in the static and dynamic deformation and consolidation of
porous media, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England
Rektorys K. 1995.Survey of applicable mathematics, 1st edition, ILIFFE Books: London 1969.
ADINA 8.1 (2004), ADINA R & D, Inc., Watertown, USA (2004)

288

View publication stats