Journal of Computer Science 2 (1): 104-108, 2006

ISSN 1549-3636
© Science Publications

Finite Element Study Using FE Code (PLAXIS) on the

Geotechnical Behavior of Shell Footings

Bujang B.K. Huat and Thamer A. Mohammed

Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract: This study describes a study on the geotechnical behavior of shell footing using a non-
linear finite element analysis with a finite element code, PLAXIS. The shell footing is found to
have a better load carrying capacity compared with the conventional slab/flat footing of similar
cross sectional area. The FE analysis also showed a reasonably good agreement with the
laboratory experimental results. The effect of adding edge beams at the bottom of the shell
footings has been studied numerically and found to be beneficial in increasing the load carrying
capacity of the footing. The effect of increasing the embedment ratio is found to increase the load
carrying capacity of the shell footings.

Key words: Finite element analysis, flat footing, foundation, shell footing

INTRODUCTION

Concept of shell is not new in foundation design,

considering construction in past with inverted brick
arch foundation in this category. The use of inverted
brick arches as foundation has been in practice in many
parts of the world for a long time. Shells in modern
foundation engineering however are relatively still
newcomer. Shell footings have been found to be
economical foundations in areas having high material to
labor cost ratio[1,2]. Shell foundation is economical and
has greater load carrying capacity compared with flat
shallow foundations. Moreover, shells are essentially
thin structures, thus structurally more efficient that flat
structures. This is an advantage in situation involving
heavy super structural loads to be transmitted to weaker
soils. Shell footing is limited to a few geometries, such Fig. 1: Typical detail of conical footing
as conical, pyramidal, hypar and spherical footings and
these footings are shown in Fig. 1-4, respectively.
The conical shell (Fig. 1) is the simplest form of
shell, which can be employed in foundation engineering
due to its singly curved surface. Due to its circular plan,
the use of conical shell footing is restricted to an
isolated footing only.
A pyramidal shell (Fig. 2) is a combination of four
inclined trapezoidal plate elements. Since the pyramid
can be portrayed as square or rectangular in plan,
multiple units of pyramidal shell foundation can be
jointly integrated to act as combined or raft foundation.
The hyperbolic paraboloid (hyper) shell (Fig. 3) is
a doubly curved anticlastic shell, which has translation
as well as ruled surfaces. This footing has potential to
be employed in a wide range of application in Fig. 2: Typical detail of pyramidal footing
foundation engineering.
Spherical shells (Fig. 4) do not posses straight-line Experimental and theoretical investigations
property, which makes its construction more complex. reported the evaluation of structural behavior for
It can only be used as an isolated footing. shell structure, such as the membrane stresses,

Corresponding Author: Bujang B.K. Huat, Department of Civil Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang,
Selangor, Malaysia
104
 J. Computer Sci., 2 (1): 104-108, 2006

conducted a finite element analysis for conical shell

footing to study the effects of increasing soil modulus.
The present study aims to study the interaction
between the shell footing and soil using a non-linear
finite element analysis code, PLAXIS. The effects of
adding edge beams at the bottom of the footing and
depth of embedment of the footings, on the load
carrying capacity of the footing are investigated using
the FE analysis.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

The shell footings and the soils were modeled and

analyzed using the commercial finite element software
Fig. 3: Typical detail of hypar footing PLAXIS, developed by PLAXIS BV, Netherlands. The
program ‘PLAXIS’ uses the incremental tangent
stiffness approach in the analysis, in which the load is
divided into a number of small increments, which are
applied simultaneously. During each load increment,
the stiffness properties appropriate for the current stress
level are employed in the numerical analysis.
Experimental results from earlier work of Abdel-
Rahman[8] were used to validate the finite element
modeling of the present study.
Three types of footing models; flat/slab footing,
triangular shell footing 1 and triangular shell footing 2
are selected for the analysis and compared with the
experimental results obtained earlier by Abdel-
Rahman[8]. The cross sections of the model footings are
shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4: Typical detail of spherical footing

bending moments, shear and deflections. For

theoretical analysis, mathematical formulations,
namely finite difference technique and finite
elements analyses were utilized. In some studies,
linear Winkler and Pasternek soil model was used
to simulate the soil behavior under different types
of shell foundations. In few studies, the distribution
of the soil contact pressure on shell footing was
also examined. The results indicated a non-uniform
contact pressure distribution along the soil-shell
interface. However, the structural design of shell
foundation is currently based on membrane theory,
in which the soil contact pressure distribution is
assumed to be uniform[3-6].
The ultimate strengths of the shell footings were
also investigated both experimentally and theoretically; Nb. Dimensions in m
and comparisons were performed with conventional flat
foundation. All studies reached the same conclusion Fig. 5: Details of half sections for flat and shells of
concerning the saving achieved in the construction triangular 1 and triangular 2 model footings
materials and the good structural performance of the
shell footing. The findings of these investigations have The cross sectional properties of the three models
direct impact on the construction cost of shell footings shown in Fig. 5 are listed in Table 1. These properties
as compared to the conventional flat counterparts[7]. are used as input for modeling the footings by the FE
Abdel-Rahman[8], Hanna and Abdel-Rahman[9,10] program PLAXIS. The soil is modeled using the Mohr-
reported experimental results on conical shell footings Coulomb model; the properties of which is shown in
on sand for plain strain condition. Maharaj[11] Table 2.
105
 J. Computer Sci., 2 (1): 104-108, 2006
Table 1: Cross-sectional properties of the finite element model
footings
Properties\Types Flat Triangular 1 Triangular 2
Cross Section Area (m2) 0.0032 0.00328 0.00453
Moment of Inertia, I (mm4) 4.27E-7 4.77E-7 6.034E-7
Modulus of Elasticity,
Esh (kN m 2) 209E6 209E6 209E6
Poisson Ratio, 0.3 0.3 0.3
Material Type Elastic Elastic Elastic
Flexural Rigidity, EI 89.173 99.696 126.11
Axial Stiffness, EA 668800 7482200 9457250

Table 2: Soil (sand) properties - Mohr- Coulomb model

Properties Value Unit
Unsaturated Unit Weight 17 kN m 3
Saturated Unit Weight 18 kN m 3
Permeability Coefficient, kx=ky 1.00 m day 1 (a) Generated mesh for triangular 1 shell footing
Young’s Modulus, E 4E4 kN m 2
Poisson Ratio, 0.3 none
Cohesion Coefficient, c 0.001 kN m 2
Friction Angle, φ 33.68 Degree
Dilatancy Angel, 2.00 Degree
Material Model Mohr-Coulomb Model none

The geometry of the mesh for plain strain condition

is symmetrical about the centerline, therefore only one
half of the cross section passing through the axis of
symmetry of the footing is considered. The nodes along
the bottom and both sides of the section are considered
as pinned supports, i.e., no movement is allowed in
both vertical and horizontal directions, which called in
the program as Standard Fixities. The soil and the
footing were modeled using 15-noded linear strain
quadrilateral elements ‘LSQ’ with quadratic variations (b) Deformed mesh for triangular 1 shell footings
for the displacement along the sides of the element.
Fig. 6: Typical generated and deformed mesh
Smaller size element for the soil was selected in the
vicinity of the footing where the variations of stresses
and strains are expected to be more significant.
Figure 6 shows the typical generated and deformed
mesh. Figure 7 shows the load–settlement curves of the
finite element (FE) models. Superimposed in Fig. 7 is
the load–settlement of the laboratory experiment. In
general there is a good agreement between the FE
model and that of the laboratory. However, the results
of the FE analyses are slightly higher than that of the
laboratory experiments. The difference is about 11, 15 Fig. 7: Load-settlement curves of the FE and
and 25% for the flat, triangular shell 1 and triangular experimental model of the flat/slab and
shell 2 footings, respectively. This is inherent since the triangular shell footings
FE analysis is done in two dimensions while the
experimental study is for a 3 D model. However both FE STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF EDGE BEAMS
the laboratory and FE models clearly show that load AND DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT
carrying capacity of the triangular shell, with a similar
The presence of an edge beam at the toe of the
cross sectional area, is higher than the flat footing. Shell
shell would reduce the soil pressure and increase the
footing ensures better enclosibility of the soil inside the
bearing capacity[12]. To examine this, as well as the
space of the footing by preventing the soil from flowing effect of embedment ratio, a finite element analysis
outward. This can be very significant, particularly when using the finite element code, PLAXIS, is done to study
the soil is poor. A similar conclusion is made by Hanna the load-settlement behavior of shell footing model
and Abdel-Rahman[9,10]. with different edge beams. Five types of edge beam

106
 J. Computer Sci., 2 (1): 104-108, 2006

Table 3: Cross-sectional properties of new shell footing models

Properties\Types Type1 Footing Type2 Footing Type3 Footing Type4 Footing Type5 Footing
Cross Section Area (m2) 0.25 0.44 0.329 0.388 0.346
4
Moment of Inertia, I (mm ) 4.0E-3 7.0E-3 5.54E-3 6.5E-3 5.0E-3
Modulus of Elasticity, Esh
(kN/m2) 2E7 2E7 2E7 2E7 2E7
Poisson Ratio, 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Material Type Elastic Elastic Elastic Elastic Elastic
Flexural Rigidity, EI 8000 14E4 11E4 13E4 10E4
Axial Stiffness, EA 5.0E6 8.8E6 6.5E6 7.76E6 6.9E6

Fig. 10: Load -settlement curve at the shell footing with

and without the edge beam

Nb. All the dimensions in m

Fig. 8: Details of half sections of shell footings with

various edge beams

Fig. 11: Effects of the various configuration of edge

beam on the shell footing

Nb. All the dimensions in m

Fig. 9: Type 1 footing with various embedment ratios, R

Fig. 12: Effect of the embedment ratio on the load
configurations were considered, namely Type 1, 2, 3, 4 carrying capacity of the shell footings
and 5 and these are shown in Fig. 8. Type 1 footing is a
shell footing without the edge beam; Type 2 footing is edge beam; Type 4 footing is with a vertical edge beam;
with a double edge beam; Type 3 footing is with single and Type 5 footing is with inclined edge beam.
107
 J. Computer Sci., 2 (1): 104-108, 2006

Embedment ratio, R is 1 for fully embedded footing and The effect of adding edge beams at the bottom of
R = 0 for footing with no embedment. In this case only the shell footings has been studied numerically and
the Type 1 footing was studied. The cross sections of found to be beneficial in increasing the load carrying
the models are shown in Fig. 9. Table 3 summarizes the capacity of the footing.
cross sectional properties of the model footing. The Fully embedded shell footing is shown to have a
sandy soil is modeled using the Mohr Coulomb model, better load carrying capacity compared with the footing
as shown Table 2. with no embedment.
Figure 10 shows the effect of adding an edge beam
at the bottom of shell footing on load-settlement curve REFERENCES
of the footing. Footing of Type 1 (i.e. without edge
1. Kurian, N.P., 1977. Economy of hyperbolic
beam) and Type 2 (with double edge beam) are paraboloidal shell footings. Geotech. Eng., 8: 53-
considered in this case. The initial portion of the two 59.
curves overlaps each other up to load of about 100 kN. 2. Kurian, N.P., 1982. Modern Foundations-
After this load, the load carried by shell footings with Introduction of Advanced Techniques. Tata
the double edge beam is significantly higher than the McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
footing without the edge beam. This shows that there is 3. Fareed, A. and R.H. Dawoud, 1979. Cylindrical
a significant improvement in settlement-load carrying shells on elastic foundation. World Cong. Shell and
capacity of the footing when added with the edge beam. Spatial Structures. Madrid, Spain, 3: 5.33-5.46.
Figure 11 shows the comparison of the load 4. Melerski, E., 1988. Thin shell foundation resting
carrying capacity of the shell footings with the various on stochastic soil. I. Structural Eng. ASCE., 114:
2692-2709.
edge beam configurations, i.e. for Type 2, 3, 4 and 5.
5. Paliwal, D.N. and R.N. Rai, 1986. Shallow
As shown footing with the double edge beam (Type 2), spherical shell on Pasternak foundation subjected
single edge beam (Type 3) and inclined edge beam to elevated temperature. J. Thin-walled
(Type 5) show better load-settlement characteristics Structures,5: 343-349.
compared with the footing having vertical edge beam 6. Paliwal, D.N. and S.N. Sinha, 1986. Static and
(Type 4). dynamic behaviour of shallow spherical shells on
Figure 12 shows the effect of embedment ratio on Winkler foundation. J. Thin-walled Structures, 4:
the load-settlement behavior of the shell footings. From 411-422.
Fig. 12 it can be seen that the load-settlement curve for 7. Kurian, N.P., 2000. Shell Foundations–The Asian
the three-embedment ratios (i.e. from fully embedded to Choice. New Building Materials and Construction
no embedment) overlaps each other until about 300 World.
8. Abdel-Rahman, M., 1996. Geotechnical behavior
KN. After this load, the load carried by the embedded
of shell foundations. Ph.D Thesis, Department of
shell footing is more than the footing without Civil Engineering, Concordia University, Montréal,
embedment. This shows the benefit of fully embedded Canada.
the footing on the load carrying capacity of the shell 9. Hanna, A.M. and M. Abdel-Rahman, 1998.
footing. Experimental investigation on shell foundations on
CONCLUSION dry sand. Can. Geotech. J., 35: 828-846.
10. Abdel-Rahman, M. and A.M. Hanna, 1990.
A non-linear finite element analysis using finite Ultimate bearing capacity of triangular shell
footings on sand. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE., 116:
element code, PLAXIS, was carried out to study the
1851-1863.
geotechnical behavior of the shell footings. 11. Maharaj, D.K., 2004. Finite element analysis of
From the finite element results, it was found that conical shell foundation. Elect. J. Geotech. Eng.,
the shell footing had a better load carrying capacity 9A: Paper No. 348.
compared with the slab/flat footing for a similar cross 12. Jain, V.K., G.C. Nayak and O.P. Jain, 1977.
sectional area. The FE analysis also showed a General behavior of the conical shell foundation.
reasonably good agreement with the laboratory Proc. 3rd Intl. Symp. Soil Structure Interaction.
experimental results; with a discrepancy of within 11 to University of Roorkee. India, 2: 53-61.
25%.

108