HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 1

SOFiSTiK
HASE
Half-Space Analysis


























SOFiSTiK AG
www.sofistik.com


HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 2


1. Half-space analysis

1.1 Why to use half-space analysis
One of the ways to model the static soil-structure interaction is to use 3D finite elements figure 1 on the left.
This however requires a huge number of soil elements which in many cases can sever times surpass the
number of elements needed for modeling of the structure itself, which is usually the main part of interest for
structural engineers. It is therefore very useful to adopt a sub-structuring technique in which the structure will be
represented using standard finite elements, while the soil will be modeled semi-analytically using the half-space
theory figure 1 right. The connection between the two substructures will be assured by stiffness/flexibility
coefficients at the soil-structure interface. This would then allow a more detailed discretization of the foundation
slab and the structure itself.













Figure 1: necessary mesh for half-space soil structure interaction compared with full 3D bric model

1.2 Stiffness coefficient method
This model takes into consideration shear deformations within the soil. A point load on the surface produces
stresses and deformations in the surrounding soil and causes the surface to form a smooth depression centered at
the load (figure 2c). Constant surface compression causes a rounded depression (cavity) which leads to stresses in
the building foundation and in the structure itself (figure 2a).










Figure 2: (a) Uniform load on L-shaped bottom slab producing settlement cavity on a half-space surface (green
grass added only for visualization) (b) Bore profile (c) Pressure trajectories in the half-space subjected to point load

(b)
(a)
(c)
0.00
4.00
5.00
30.0
0
Full 3D BRIC model
3D half-space model
half-space

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 3


1.3 Creating half-space stiffness matrix
The starting point of determining the half-space stiffness matrix is the assembly of the flexibility matrix of the half-
space (soil). Flexibility coefficient ik describes the displacement vi of a point i due to a unit force Pk acting on the
point k in the half-space.










Figure 3: (a) Stresses in vertical direction z due to a point load P acting on the surface of the half-space (b)
Stresses in the vertical direction z due to a point load acting inside a half-space at the depth z

In a first step the stress in the soil due to the point load Pk acting on the surface of the half-space is calculated with
a simple half-space formula according to Smoltczyk [1], describing pressure trajectories (figures 2c and 3a):

3
, 3
3
2
k
z i
P z
R

= , (1)
where x, y, and z represent the coordinates of the observed point within the half-space, measured from the point of
load introduction at the half-space surface, while
2 2 2
R x y z = + + .

This distribution of stress z divided with the soil stiffness modulus Es is integrated over the depth of the soil to
give the expected deflection vi due to the force Pk . This technique allows taking into account layered soil as shown
in figure 2b as well as varying soil conditions in ground view (extended half-space). Because equation (1) is
determined under the assumption of the uniform half-space, the shear behavior of a layered soil cannot be taken
into consideration completely correct. Nevertheless the results are acceptable also for a layered soil with varying
stiffness in depth and ground view.
The same method can be used to calculate displacements (or the flexibility coefficient ik) due to the loads
acting within the half-space. The only difference is in the formulas for the calculation of stresses, which can also be
found in Smoltczyk [1]:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
3 2
, 2 5
3 1
3 4 5
8 (1 )
k
z i
P
R

= + + + +

( )
( )
( )
3
7 3
1 2 10 1
1
3

| |
+ +
` |
\ )
, (2)

where / z R = , / z R = and / R R = . The meaning of z , R and R is explained in the figure 3b.
(x,y,z)
(x,y,z)
x
y
x
z
y
z
P
P
R
z
r
R

z
z=

(a)
(b)

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 4


When the flexibility matrix is assembled, by inversion the stiffness matrix of the half-space can be obtained,
connecting all nodes of the soil-structure interface (nodes of the bottom slab) in a huge stiffness bubble.

1.4 Linear finite element analysis
Once computed, the aforementioned soil stiffness matrix can then be used in a standard finite element analysis.
The following summarizes the algorithm for total linear analysis run:
1. Calculation of the soilprofile distribution in the plan view
2. Calculation of the flexibility matrix
3. Inversion and storage of the stiffness matrix
4. Static calculation including both soil and structure
5. Post-processing for stresses in the soil (also in deeper visualization cutting planes inside the soil)












Figure 4: (a) Deformation and stresses in the building on the half-space (b) Possible visualization cut in the half-
space

1.5 Piles in the half-space
Using extended formula given in Smoltczyk [1] (eqn. (2)) the effects of loads acting within the half-space can be
taken into account. This makes it possible to incorporate piles in the treatment of the half-space. As shown in figure
5, the pressure trajectories of the numerous internal and external forces Pk overlap in the half-space leading to a
complex interaction of piles with each other and with the foundation slab. This is called combined pile-slab
interaction. Figure 4b also shows the effect of a pile foot as a hot spot inside the half-space.









Figure 5: Pile-slab interaction superposition of pressure trajectories in the half-space

(b) (a)

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 5


2. Nonlinear half-space contact analysis
Solving the global system consisting of bottom slab, building and half-space with the real external loads, we first
obtain linear displacements, forces and stresses. These stresses can be checked and reduced if necessary in a
nonlinear iteration.

2.1 Foundation slab soil pressure
First nonlinear effect that is taken into consideration is the reduction of boundary soil pressure under the foundation
slab, exceeding defined maximum limit. Linear analysis of a uniformly loaded bottom slab causes concentration of
the stresses at the boundary as shown in figure 6.






Figure 6: Uniformly loaded bottom slab: red=linear result, blue=nonlinear result with yield plateau

2.2 Method of nonlinear residual force iteration
The method for the half-space contact iteration differs from a common finite element nonlinear iteration where a
nonlinear answer of the element force to a given displacement can be used directly.
In a half-space analysis presented here, it is necessary at the end of the each iteration to guarantee that the half-
space displacements correspond to the nonlinear reduced contact forces. A reduction or limitation of a force in one
contact node causes a change in all other half-space nodes. So in order to preserve this global relationship
between interface nodes the reduced contact force vector is multiplied with the half-space flexibility matrix, resulting
in a displacement vector. Comparing this displacement vector with the actual finite element displacements we can
extract correction forces from the difference between these two vectors. At the end of a convergent iteration these
displacements can be plotted as in case of example in figure 7 showing the plastic sinking of the boundary of the
foundation slab.







Figure 7: blue=bottom slab, red=theoretic half-space surface, difference = plastified (squeezed out)

2.3 Pile foot limitation and pile skin friction
Similarly to the soil pressure underneath the foundation slab, it can be checked if the contact forces of piles
exceed allowable values at the pile foot and along the pile (pile skin friction). A plastic yielding of the pile
reactions will cause stress in the foundation slab bedding to increase. In the example below (figure 8), the
yielding of skin friction causes pile foot force to increase.
Halfspace surface
Stiff bottom slab Squeezed out
Yielding plateau
Linear result

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 6













Figure 8: Linear (a) and nonlinear (b) pile reactions (20 kN/m maximum friction allowed in the upper part)

2.4 Horizontal pile forces
Assuming a horizontal half-space stiffness to be affine to the vertical stiffness, horizontal forces can also interact
over the half-space. This approach is not an optimum but it is much better than individual global fixed piles
without any pile interaction. The horizontal pile bedding can as well be checked against an allowable horizontal
bedding force. With this approach it is also possible to take into consideration inclined piles in a nonlinear
analysis (figures 9 and 10).










Figure 9: Examples for piles in half-space with horizontal effect














Figure 10: Higher nonlinear (b) pile bending due to horizontal soil yielding on upper pile part
Soil
resistance
yielding
P
axial
lateral
(b)
(a)
2
5
8
5
1433
-1
2
6
8
-1
2
0
8
-
1
1
9
4
-7
6
8
.7
-5
6
4
.3
439.6
338.9
-317.6
-2
8
4
.4
264.8
-191.7
-133.7
129.6
-1
2
0
.0
-36.3
-2
2
.9
-1
9
.9
1
3
.0
-12.6
-12.3
-9
.1
9
-
6
.3
3
-3.93
-2.79
1
.0
5
0.976
4
2
6
8
2649
-2
5
8
6
-2
3
0
5
2
0
8
3
-1
9
6
4
-1819
1433
-1236
1186
-936.1
9
1
2
.2
9
0
8
.2
-8
0
7
.1
-6
9
5
.8
6
8
4
.0
6
7
0
.4
321.0
3
0
1
.7
-169.0
1
5
6
.6
-1
0
2
.1
(b)
(a)
-778.8
-778.8
-759.5
-155.8
-155.8
-143.7
-143.7
-128.3
-124.1
-124.1
-105.8
-105.8
-105.6
-86.9
-86.9
-85.6
-67.0
-66.8
-66.8
-50.8
-33.3
-24.6
-24.6
-15.7
-914.6
-914.2
-914.2
-80.0
-79.9
-79.9
-48.3
-48.2
-48.2
-20.1
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-20.0
-13.8
-13.8
-13.1
mantle
yield level
20 kN/m
pile foot

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 7


3. Example pile-slab interaction
The following example is taken from Katzenbach et al. [2], and it shows the effect of pile-pile as well as the pile-
slab interaction. It takes into consideration all the aforementioned non-linear effects maximum pile foot force,
maximum skin friction and maximum soil pressure underneath the slab.
Two piled raft systems are analyzed one with 25 and the other with 9 piles connected to the pile cap. Pile
elements are modeled with 1D beam elements, while the slab is modeled with the 2D quadrilaterals. Piles have
circular cross section with diameter D = 1.5 m and length l = 20xD. Slab is quadratic in base with side length a =
18xD and thickness d=1.0 m. Piles are distributed over regular grid with the distance of e=3xD for the system with
25 piles and e=6xD for the system with 9 piles.
Structure is made of reinforced concrete of class 30 according to DIN 1045. Soil is modeled as half-space with
stiffness modulus of 0.6 GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.25. Maximum soil pressure underneath the slab is set to be 5
MN/m
2
. Maximum pile skin friction is constant along the pile and is equal to 60 kN/m
2
, while the maximum pile foot
force is chosen to be 3000 kN.
The structure is subjected to uniform constant load acting on the top of the slab with the total resultant value of 200
MN. Figure 11 shows the differences in the deformation of the pile-slab system with 25 piles and the one with
only 9 piles.












Figure 11: Deformation of the pile-slab system subjected to uniform load of total intensity RTOT = 200 MN (scale
= 60); (a) 25 piles, e/D = 3, maximum displacement 6.3 cm (b) 9 piles, e/D = 6, maximum displacement 8.6 cm

Figure 12 shows the distribution of the normal force along a pile length for corner, edge and central pile of the
pile-slab system with 25 and 9 piles. As can be seen from these figures, in the case of the 9-pile system the
distribution of the normal force is much more balanced. The differences are less than 3%. In the case of the
pile-slab system with 25 piles, differences are significant. As expected, the largest difference is between the
central and corner pile with the factor of more than 2. Both systems exhibit nonlinear behavior. Results show
that the maximal skin friction in both systems is exceeded in the lower parts of the piles. However, while for the
pile-slab system with 9 piles the maximum foot force of 3000 kN is reached in all piles, in the case of a 25-pile
system none of the piles exhibit this behavior. The soil stress underneath the slab in both cases is way below
the chosen limit of 5 MN/m
2
.
(a (b

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 8































Figure 12: Normal force distribution for the corner, edge and central pile in the pile-slab system with (a) 25 piles
and (b) 9 piles

Figure 13 depicts the force-displacement behavior of the combined pile-slab system. Load is varied between 0
and 3xRTOT, where RTOT = 200 MN. Vertical displacement of the center of the slab is recorded and plotted
versus total load. As mentioned before, both of the systems exhibit nonlinear behavior, however there are
some differences. In both systems nonlinearity starts relatively early - first the maximum skin friction is
exceeded in the lower parts of the piles and it progresses successively towards the surface. In the case of 9-
pile system this yielding occurs earlier, under smaller total force than for the case of 25-pile system. Next the
maximum pile foot force starts to yield for the 25-pile system this yielding starts at 1.22 RTOT, while for the
9-pile system it starts at 0.70 RTOT. From the figure it appears that in this case the nonlinear behavior of the
piled raft system is mostly dominated by the yielding of the pile foot force.

Figure 14 shows how the part of the total resultant load transferred by the piles to the ground depends on the
settlement of the center of the foundation and on the total applied load.
-8430
-2158
-8376
-8275
-8110
-7892
-7634
-7349
-7042
-6712
-6355
-5969
-5551
-5127
-4703
-4278
-3854
-3430
-3006
-2582
5.00 10.00 m
2
5
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
1
5
.0
0
1
0
.0
0
5
.0
0
Corner
-6291
-1542
-6262
-6233
-6179
-6093
-5974
-5824
-5645
-5437
-5202
-4941
-4654
-4343
-4007
-3641
-3238
-2814
-2390
-1966
5.00 10.00 m
2
5
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
1
5
.0
0
1
0
.0
0
5
.0
0
Edge
-3682
-1029
-3678
-3664
-3655
-3620
-3619
-3578
-3551
-3546
-3456
-3333
-3181
-2994
-2771
-2509
-2207
-1861
-1453
15.00 20.00 m
2
5
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
1
5
.0
0
1
0
.0
0
5
.0
0
Central
(a
)
M 1 : 198
-10565
-3000
-10394
-10136
-9783
-9364
-8940
-8516
-8091
-7667
-7243
-6819
-6394
-5970
-5546
-5122
-4697
-4273
-3849
-3424
5.00 10.00 m
2
5
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
1
5
.0
0
1
0
.0
0
5
.0
0
Corner
M 1 : 198
-10503
-3000
-10325
-10079
-9755
-9364
-8940
-8516
-8092
-7667
-7243
-6819
-6395
-5970
-5546
-5122
-4697
-4273
-3849
-3425
5.00 10.00 m
2
5
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
1
5
.0
0
1
0
.0
0
5
.0
0
Edge
M 1 : 198
-10357
-3000
-10189
-9976
-9703
-9362
-8940
-8516
-8092
-7668
-7243
-6819
-6395
-5970
-5546
-5122
-4697
-4273
-3849
-3425
15.00 20.00 m
2
5
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
1
5
.0
0
1
0
.0
0
5
.0
0
Central
(b
)

HASE half-space analysis 2011 page 9














Figure 13: Force-displacement curve of the pile-slab system subjected to uniform load. R represents the total
resultant load applied at the top of the slab, while the displacement is the displacement of the center of the slab.












Figure 14: Dependency of the contribution of the piles to the total resistance of the piled raft foundation on (a)
displacement of the center of the slab and (b) total load applied at the top of the slab

Conclusions
When analyzing a soil-structure interaction it can be very useful to concentrate on the meshing of the
structure and not to avoid discretizing the soil with large number of volume brick elements, which can
sometimes several times surpass the number of elements needed for the modelling of the structure itself.
This work shows that it is possible to model the static behaviour of soil by representing it with
flexibility/stiffness matrix at the soil-structure interface based solely on the half-space theory. This paper also
shows that it is possible to incorporate nonlinear effects using this half-space technique. The nonlinear half-
space contact allows not only vertical but also horizontal stress interaction in the soil and redistribution of
loads from piles to the slab and vice versa.

References
[1] Smoltczyk U., Grundbau Taschenbuch, 3. Edition, Part 1, Verlag Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Germany,
1980
[2] Katzenbach R., Knig G., et al., Richtlinie fr den Enwurf, die Bemessung und den Bau von
Kombinierten Pfahl-Plattengrndungen (KPP), Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Germany, 2000