Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 2025; 47(2): 121–133

Original Study Open Access

Jacek Grosel*, Wojciech Pakos

Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage

stresses in foundation reinforced concrete
elements
[Link]
received October 11, 2024; accepted April 13, 2025.
most commonly mentioned in the literature on the subject
[1, 2] are relative humidity, type and amount of binder,
Abstract: This paper presents a numerical analysis of water content and water to cement ratio, type and content
the shrinkage of reinforced concrete foundations on the of cement, ratio of fine to coarse aggregate and type of
ground, known as mat foundations. It presents Finite aggregate (its stiffness) and also the size and shape of the
Element Method (FEM) calculations of a beam and its element.
verification with analytical solutions. Two numerical A distinction is made between plastic, chemical
models of mat foundations have been adopted for the (autogenous), drying and thermal shrinkage, [1, 3, 4,
purpose of this study. The first model is a foundation 5]. Plastic shrinkage refers to the loss of moisture and
resting directly on the ground, that is, on an elastic contraction of the concrete before it sets, while the other
Winkler base. The second numerical model consists types of shrinkage occur as the concrete ages. Drying
of layers, that is, a mat foundation and a substructure shrinkage is caused by the loss of water during the drying
(lean concrete), taking into account the frictional forces process. It increases with time and takes place months
between these layers. The Mohr–Coulomb model was and years after casting. Chemical shrinkage (often called
used in the analyses. Conclusions were drawn from the autogenous shrinkage) occurs rapidly in the days or weeks
numerical analyses on the influence of the soil substrate after casting. It results from chemical reactions taking
on the magnitude of the shrinkage stresses. Modelling the place in the concrete mix. Thermal shrinkage is a change
interaction between the foundation and a concrete sole in the dimensions of a component due to a reduction in
using elastic bonds is clearly suboptimal. Using friction the temperature of the concrete as the heat of hydration
to model this connection is a better approach as it avoids is dissipated. This shrinkage occurs during the first few
underestimating shrinkage stresses. The differences can hours (or days) after setting.
be up to an order of magnitude. In the absence of restrained boundaries (i.e.
connections to other structural elements) and internal
Keywords: mat foundation; concrete shrinkage; reinforcing bars, shrinkage will reduce the dimensions
shrinkage of slabs; structure–substructure interaction. of the elements creating stresses that would give a zero
resultant. Therefore, there are no stresses other than the
self-balancing stresses resulting from the difference in
1 Introduction the rate of heat or moisture transfer between the surface
and the interior of the concrete element. In the context
Concrete shrinkage is a phenomenon that almost always of reinforced concrete, the scenario considered is purely
occurs and starts when the concrete mix is placed and hypothetical, given the presence of internal ties and the
vibrated. The magnitude and rate of development of fact that the majority of structural elements are subject
shrinkage depend on many factors, among which the to restrained boundaries. The effect of the presence of
internal bonds against shrinkage is described, among
others, in references [3] and [6].
*Corresponding author: Jacek Grosel, Wroclaw University of Science The potential for significant shrinkage deformations
and Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, pl. Grunwaldzki 11, 50-
is of concern because of their ability to induce significant
370 Wrocław, Poland, E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
cracking. This, in turn, can lead to corrosion of the
Wojciech Pakos, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, pl. Grunwaldzki 11, 50-370 Wrocław, steel and reduction in the load-carrying capacity of the
Poland structure. To mitigate the problem of shrinkage, a specific

Open Access. © 2025 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution alone 4.0 License.
122 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos

type of cement is used in conjunction with concrete

additives and admixtures. In addition to the above, it is
imperative that great care is taken during curing of the
concrete and reinforcement to limit the development of
shrinkage cracks.
The issue of shrinkage analysis in reinforced concrete
structures, particularly in the context of bridges, has been
the subject of extensive research over a long period of
time. Numerical approaches [7] and analytical solutions
have been established, particularly for deep bridge beams
(2 m or more in height) [8]. In contrast to foundations
(continuous strip footings or mat foundations), there
is an absence of interaction between the structure and
the ground for beams (such as bridges or floors). In the
case of ground-based structures, soil parameters are not
generally considered [7] or are only taken into account Figure 1: Cross section of reinforced concrete beam with reinforcing
due to the limitations of water contained in the concrete bar arrangement, dimensions in millimetres.
mixture [9]. Consequently, it is still common in practice
to encounter numerous cases of unforeseen cracking of of the concrete elements corresponding to the shrinkage.
reinforced concrete structures, especially mat foundation, The elements modelling the reinforcement have no
where there is an interaction between the structure and thermal deformation. Calculations for the same data were
the soil. performed using the analytical formulae derived below.
In this paper, a numerical analysis of the shrinkage of The results obtained from FEM were compared to those
mat foundations was carried out. The influence of concrete obtained from the analytical solutions.
shrinkage on the stresses in the mat foundation was
investigated. Concrete shrinkage associated with concrete
drying out (the so-called first critical term [10]) was 2.1 The geometry and material parameters
modelled with Finite Element Method (FEM) calculation
with a uniform temperature gradient. The foundation was This paper considers a 0.6 × 0.6 × 10 m, reinforced concrete
modelled as an elastic Winkler foundation with stiffness beam with the following material parameters.
parameters kx, ky, kz. The effect of different values of the Concrete:
stiffness coefficients k was considered. The numerical – Young’s modulus Ecm = 30.8 GPa,
analyses also considered the case of friction between – Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.2,
the mat foundation and the substructure (lean concrete – coefficient of thermal expansion at = 10-5 1/℃ and
substructure). The numerical analyses also considered – density ρ = 2400 kg/m3.
the case of friction between the mat foundation and the – uniform temperature gradient: ∆T = 24.6 ºC
supporting substructure.
Reinforcement:
– elasticity modulus Es = 200 GPa,

2 Verification of FEM calculations – Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3 and

– density ρ = 7850 kg/m3.

The purpose of this section is to verify the FEM calculations.

A reinforcement ratio of 1.5% (0.015 × 60 × 60 = 54.0 cm2)
For the purpose of this verification, the standard structural
was assumed for the calculations, so 11 bars of f 25 with
case was not analysed, but the data has been taken
a reinforcement cross-sectional area of 54.0 cm2 were
arbitrarily. For the calculations, the material parameters
assumed. The cross section of the beam with the location
were taken as in the second numerical example (section
of the reinforcing bars is shown in Figure 1.
3), where justification of the taken values is given and
the necessary calculations are included. Shrinkage in the
FEM model was simulated by changing (lowering) the
temperature, resulting in a reduction in the dimensions
 Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage stresses in foundation reinforced concrete elements 123

Figure 2: The section under analysis, deformations of cross section, forces due to strain.

2.2 Analytical approach – εsb – strain of steel at the level of the lower
reinforcement (contraction)
A rectangular section of concrete (with Young’s modulus – εst – strain of steel at the level of the upper
Ec) is considered, with reinforcing steel (with Young’s reinforcement (contraction)
modulus Es) added in upper and lower levels. The top – Ac = b × h – concrete cross-sectional area
reinforcement has a section Ast, with its centre of gravity – Asb = 𝜇b × Ac – area of the lower reinforcement
located at a distance at from the top edge. The bottom – Ast = 𝜇t × Ac – area of the bottom reinforcement
reinforcement has a section Asb, with its centre of gravity – at, ab – top/bottom concrete cover
located at a distance ab from the bottom edge. – n0 = Es/Ec – relative stiffness, that is, ratio of Young’s
The section under analysis and its deformations are modulus of steel to concrete
displayed in Figure 2. The following designations have – Fsb, Fst – force in the upper and the lower reinforcement,
been adopted for the purpose of clarification: respectively
– line ‘0-0’ represents the initial state, – Fc1, Fc2 – part of the force in concrete (the total force in
– line ‘1-1’ represents the state of the section after free the concrete is split into two components)
shrinkage, that is, shrinkage without external or
internal constraints and In accordance with the aforementioned assumptions, it
– line ‘2-2’ represents the final state, after constrained is possible to derive two equilibrium equations. The first
shrinkage, that is, limited by internal ties such as of these is for the equilibrium of forces along the axis of
reinforcement. the bar (axial force equilibrium), and the second is for
the equilibrium of moments. When these equations are
The assumption is made that plane sections remain plane, considered in conjunction with the assumption of planar
as in the paper [11], and the following designations are sections, they take the following forms.
introduced:
– εf – free strain 𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴 = 0: 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 − 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 −𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 0
– εcb – strain of concrete at the lower edge of the section (1
𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴1 = 0: 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1 ∙ 13ℎ + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 ∙ 23ℎ − 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ∙ 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 −𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ∙ (ℎ − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ) = 0 (1)
�
– εct – strain of concrete at the upper edge of the section
– εcsb – strain of concrete at the lower reinforcement
level 𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴 = 0:
(−𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 +ℎ)(𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀 −𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀 )
1
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 12 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 �− 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 +
– εcst – strain of concrete at the upper reinforcement 2 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 −𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )
(2) (2)
+𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 �− − 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 0
level ℎ
124 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos

Figure 3: Stress S33 = Szz (kPa) in the concrete beam.

If the section is reinforced only at the bottom, the results

simplify to the form:

2 �3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−ℎ� ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 2 2 (6)
ℎ +4�3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏ℎ+ℎ � 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

2 �−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏+2ℎ� ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = 2 2 (7)
ℎ +4 �3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏ℎ+ℎ � 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

Using the data indicated in section 2.1, the following

results are obtained:

εcb = 6.34 ×10−5 (8)

Figure 4: Stresses S33 = Szz (kPa) in the cross section at the mid-span
of a concrete beam.
εct = −2.61 ×10−5 (9)

𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴𝛴1 = 0: εsb = 1.92 ×10−4 (10)

1
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ℎ2 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +13 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ℎ2 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +
6 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
(−𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +ℎ)(𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 −𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )
− 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 �− − 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + (3) (3)
which gives stresses
ℎ
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 −𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )
−𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ℎ (ℎ − 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ) 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 �− − 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 0
ℎ σcb = 1.95 MPa (11)

The system under consideration comprises two equations σct = −0.80 MPa (12)
with two unknowns. The solutions to these equations are
as follows: σsb = 38.30 MPa (13)

2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 �(3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 −ℎ) ℎ 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +�ℎ(−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +2ℎ)+6(𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 −ℎ)2 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 � 2.3 A numerical approach
𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 12 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
2 2 2
0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +ℎ[ℎ+4(−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +ℎ)𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ]+4 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 �3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 −3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ℎ+ℎ +3(𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 −ℎ) 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 �𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
(4)(4)

The numerical model of a reinforced concrete beam

2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 �(−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +2ℎ) ℎ 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +�ℎ(3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 −ℎ)+6(𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 −ℎ)2 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 � was created using Abaqus FEM software [12] (Fig. 3).
𝜀𝜀𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 12 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (5) (5)
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +ℎ[ℎ+4(−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +ℎ)𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ]+4 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0�3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2−3𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ℎ+ℎ2 +3(𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 +𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 −ℎ)2𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛0 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 �𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
The concrete beam is represented by general purpose
 Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage stresses in foundation reinforced concrete elements 125

Figure 5: Stress S11 = Szz (kPa) in the reinforcement.

Table 1: Results from analytical and numerical FEM solution.

Stresses (MPa)
Analytical solution Numerical solution Relative error Remarks
σA (FEM) σF Δσ (%)

Concrete, the lower edge of the section 1.95 1.896 2.8% Tension

Concrete, the upper edge of the section -0.80 -0.748 6.5% Compression

Reinforcing steel bars -38.30 -38.38 0.2% Compression

eight-node linear hexahedral elements of type C3D8 and beam. The relative error was calculated using the formula
reinforcement by truss elements. The numerical model ∆σ=(σF-σA)/σA(%).
assumed a Winkler substrate with a very low value of
stiffness (kx = ky = kz = 1·10-5 kN/m3) to obtain the effect of
an unsupported beam (i.e. beam without substrate), to be
in accordance with the analytical calculations.
3 Calculation example – a mat
The numerical calculations yielded stresses at the foundation
centre of the beam span of 1.896 MPa (tensile stresses, Fig.
4) at the bottom of the beam cross section and −0.748 MPa This section presents a numerical example of a mat
(compressive stresses, Fig. 4) at the top. In comparison, foundation, taking into account the foundation–soil
the stresses in the reinforcing bars were found to be −38.38 interaction. The soil was modelled as either a Winkler
MPa (compressive stresses, Fig. 5). foundation (model ‘A’) or as a combination of elastic
bonds in the vertical direction and frictional forces
in the horizontal direction (model ‘B’). Both models
2.4 Discussion of numerical results are schematically shown in Figure 6. Although more
sophisticated ground models have been developed, due
A comparison of the results obtained from analytical and to good approximations and its simplicity, the Winkler
numerical (FEM) calculations is provided in Table 1. The model is widely used in engineering practice [13]. The
stress values obtained from the numerical calculations objective of the numerical analyses presented here is
demonstrate a high degree of agreement with the stress to ascertain whether there is a significant difference in
values obtained from the analytical solutions. The performance between these ground models (models ‘A’
differences in the values obtained may be attributed to and ‘B’). Movements of the foundation sole associated
the FEM numerical modelling. The FEM model assumed with shrinkage deformation in the case of model ‘A’
a Winkler substrate with very low stiffness, while the always occur and are inversely proportional to the
analytical solution refers to a completely unsupported horizontal stiffness of the subsoil. In the case of model
126 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos

‘B’, movement will occur if the forces due to shrinkage ϱb =2400 kg/m3, Q7 – hydration heat of cement after 7 days
exceed a certain limit depending on the frictional forces. of hardening (kJ/kg), Q7 =325 kJ/kg,
The hypothesis is that model ‘B’ may yield higher stress
300⋅325
values, as in this model, the movement of the foundation Δ𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇adiab = = 40.6°C (2) (15)
1⋅2400
sole may not occur, which is equivalent to external ties.
At the same time, the foundation–sole interaction in The corrected (reduced) hardening temperature,
model ‘B’ is closer to reality. In the presented examples, calculated using a reduction factor that takes into account
the mat foundation is loaded only with its own weight, heat exchange with the environment and non-adiabatic
corresponding to a situation where the building structure conditions inside the element, is χ=0.65 for foundation
has not yet been built on the foundation mat. This is mats with a thickness of less than 1 m [14].
an early stage of construction, and therefore, the effect
of autogenous shrinkage is analysed. In the case of red
𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇adiab = 𝜒𝜒𝜒𝜒 ⋅ 𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇adiab = 0.65 ∙ 40.6 = 26.4°𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (16) (3
completed construction, the load on the mat is increased,
causing an increase in frictional forces. This design The initial temperature of the concrete mix (Tc0) was
situation occurs a long time after the foundation mat has assumed to be 20°C, the same as the ambient temperature
been constructed, and in this case, shrinkage from drying (Ta),
out will be predominant. This case is not analysed in this
article but will be the subject of subsequent publications. 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐0 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 20.0°𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (4) (17)

Calculation of temperature inside the element Tin:

3.1 The geometry and material properties
red
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐0 + 𝛥𝛥𝛥𝛥𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇adiab = 46.4°𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (18) (5)
This paper considers a 45 × 30 m, 60-cm-thick concrete mat
foundation with the following material parameters [10, 14]: and the temperature on the surface of the element:
– concrete with strength class C35/45, fcm = 43 MPa, fck =
35 MPa [15] made of Portland cement CEM I, class CR;
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 −𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ℎ
– elasticity modulus Ecm=kE⋅fcm1/3, for concrete with 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 1 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆 ⋅ (6) (19)
ℎ+2 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2
quartzite aggregates kE=9500, Ecm = 33.3 GPa; 2 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

– modulus of elasticity for concrete younger than 28 days

is given by formula (B.4) from [15] Ecm (t)=Ecm⋅βcc1/3(t) where: h – thickness of the element (m), λc – value of
and βcc is given by formula (B.2) from [15] thermal conductivity coefficient of concrete (W/(m °C)),
for quartzite aggregate is equal to [14]:
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡ref 28
𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) = exp �𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 �1 − � � � �,
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡ref
𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = 3.4 W/(m ⋅ °C) (7) (20)
sc=0.3 for class CR and fck≤35 MPa
for 7-day concrete Ecm(7)=Ecm⋅βcc1/3(7)=0.926 Ecm=30.8 αc – coefficient of heat exchange on the surface of a
GPa; concrete member [W/(m2 °C)], coefficient depending on
– Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.2; the speed of air movement around the concrete element,
– coefficient of thermal expansion at = 10-5 1/°C and for air velocity equals to zero [14]:
– density ρ = 2400 kg/m3.
𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 6.0 W/(m2 ⋅ °C) (21) (8)
Calculation of hardening temperature of concrete in
adiabatic conditions (i.e. no heat exchange with the
20−46.4 0.6
environment) 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 46.4 + 1 3.4 ⋅ = 40.9 °C (22) (9)
0.6+2 2
2 6.0

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶7
Δ𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇adiab = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (1) (14)
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ⋅𝜚𝜚𝜚𝜚𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
mean temperature at the thickness of the foundation:
where: C – amount of cement in 1 m of concrete (kg), 3

C =300 kg, cb – specific heat of concrete, [kJ/(kg °C)], cb =1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − �𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � = 46.4 − (46.4 − 40.9) = 44.6 °C (23)
1 1
3 3
(10)
kJ/kg °C, ϱb – volumetric mass density of concrete (kg/m3),
temperature difference causing deformation
 Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage stresses in foundation reinforced concrete elements 127

a) b)

Figure 6: Structure model diagrams adopted for numerical analyses.

Δ𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 24.6 °𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (24)

(11) assuming contact between two slab surfaces. Two friction
coefficients, µ = 0.1 and µ = 0.5, were considered in the
In this paper, two numerical models of the mat foundation calculations. Firstly, a low coefficient of friction was
were adopted for the analyses. The first model (cf. Fig. 6a) adopted to facilitate a comparison of the results obtained
is a mat foundation that rests directly on a Winkler from this ‘B’ model with those obtained from the Winkler
elastic foundation with vertical elastic coefficients kz and substrate-based plate model (model ‘A’). Subsequently,
horizontal elastic coefficients kx and ky. The horizontal a second, five-fold higher friction coefficient was
elasticity coefficients were taken as follows implemented to investigate the effect of friction variation
on stresses. Finally, three values of stiffness coefficient kz
kx = ky = µkz (25) were included in the analysis, with these values covering
the range of stiffness coefficients found in construction –
in which µ is the coefficient of friction between the soil compare Table 2.
and the foundation. It was further assumed that the – For weak soils: kz = 10,000 kN/m3
slab lies on a sliding layer, that is, the coefficient of – For medium soils: kz = 50,000 kN/m3
friction between the two layers of special foil is µ = 0.08. – For strong soils: kz = 100,000 kN/m3
Special foil covers or sheets with a very low coefficient of
friction (0.05 up to 0.10) are used in the construction of The bearing capacity condition Mohr–Coulomb for
foundation supports [16]. For the numerical calculations, non-cohesive soils is described by the formula:
the following assumptions were made: kz = 50,000 kN/m3
and kx = ky = 0.08kz = 4000 kN/m3. 𝜏 > 𝜎 tan (φ) (26)
The numerical model shown in Fig. 6b consists of two
slabs: a mat foundation and a blinding layer (lean concrete When the shear stresses (𝜏) are greater than the normal
substructure). The slab modelling the substructure stress (𝜎) multiplied by the tangent of the internal friction
was supported in the vertical direction by elastic bonds angle (tan φ), plasticisation occurs and adjacent layers
(three different values of stiffness were considered for move relative to each other. An analogous situation occurs
these bonds) and in the horizontal direction by bonds of when two layers are considered to be bonded by friction.
infinite stiffness. The modelling of friction between the If the force opposing the friction is greater, slippage will
concrete slabs was conducted through the utilisation of occur. The frictional force is proportional to the pressure,
the classical isotropic Coulomb friction model in Abaqus, therefore the following analogies are legitimate: normal
128 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos

Figure 7: Stress S11 = σx (kPa) in the concrete slab founded on soil (Winkler model: kz = 50,000 kN/m3, kx = ky = 4000 kN/m3).

Figure 8: Stress S22 = σy (kPa) in the concrete slab founded on soil (Winkler model: kz = 50,000 kN/m3, kx = ky = 4000 kN/m3).

Table 2 Range of modulus of subgrade reaction kz based on [13].:

weight. The calculations were carried out using FEM in
Soil kz (kN/m3) Abaqus. The mat foundation and the substructure slab
(lean concrete base) were modelled using solid elements.
Loose sand 4800–16,000

Medium dense sand 9600–80,000

Dense sand 64,000–128,000

3.2 Numerical results
Clayey medium dense sand 32,000–80,000
This section presents the results of the numerical
Silty medium dense sand 24,000–48,000 calculations. The figures show and the tables summarise
Clayey soil: the normal stresses S11 = σx and S22 = σy, such that the σx
stresses act in the direction of the long side of the mat
qa < 200 kPa 12,000–24,000
foundation and the σy stresses act in the direction of
200 < qa < 800 kPa 24,000–48,000 the short side. The results obtained for model ‘A’ (mat
qa > 800 kPa >48,000 foundation resting on Winkler elastic base) are shown in
Figures 7 and 8. The results of the calculations for model ‘A’
where qa is bearing capacity furnished in kPa. are presented in Table 2 under the assumption of a friction
coefficient of 0.1. This is undertaken for the purpose of
force ~ 𝜎 tan (φ), friction force ~ 𝜏. Given the above, the facilitating a comparison with the results obtained from
use of frictional bonds for modelling ground with Mohr– the calculations for model ‘B’.
Coulomb condition is legitimate. Figures 9–12 show the stresses S11 = σx and S22 = σy
The load on the mat foundation is a uniform obtained from the numerical calculations for model ‘B’
temperature gradient: ∆T = 24.6°C – this value was derived (mat foundation resting on a lean concrete sublayer) with
above. In both models (‘A’ and ‘B’), the load was dead different values of the friction coefficient and different
 Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage stresses in foundation reinforced concrete elements 129

Figure 9: Stress S11 = σx (kPa) in the concrete slab resting on the lean concrete substructure: friction coefficient µ = 0.1, kz = 50,000 kN/m3.

Figure 10: Stress S22 = σy (kPa) in the concrete slab resting on the lean concrete substructure: friction coefficient µ = 0.1, kz = 50,000 kN/m3.

Figure 11: Stress S11 = σx (kPa) in the concrete slab resting on the lean concrete substructure: friction coefficient µ = 0.5, kz = 10,000 kN/m3.

values of the stiffness coefficient kz of the soil substrate. is 0.42 MPa, while the authors of the book [10] gave the
Table 2 summarises the results of the maximum stresses maximum tensile stress value of 0.47 MPa.
σx and σy. A comparison of models ‘A’ and ‘B’, that is, an analysis
of the second and third first rows of Table 3, reveals
a substantial discrepancy in the results obtained by these
3.3 Discussion of numerical results models. Specifically, model ‘B’ yields results that are
11 times higher for σx stresses and 15 times higher for σy
The results obtained in model ‘A’ (slab on Winkler stresses. These discrepancies are greater than one order
substrate) are similar (qualitatively and quantitatively) of magnitude, thereby signifying the Winkler model’s
to the results of the numerical calculations presented in inadequacy in considering the shrinkage of concrete
[10]. In this model, the maximum tensile stress S11 = σx elements in conjunction with the simultaneous action of
130 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos

Figure 12: Stress S22 = σy (kPa) in the concrete slab resting on the lean concrete substructure: friction coefficient µ = 0.5, kz = 10,000 kN/m3.

Table 3: Stresses S11 = σx and S22 = σy depending on stiffness kz and Table 6: Change of maximum stresses Δσx and Δσy in relation to
friction coefficient µ. stresses for µ = 0.1.

Numerical µ kz S11 = σx (MPa) S22 = σy (MPa) kz Δσx Δσy

model (-) (kN/m3) Max. Min. Max. Min. (kN/m ) 3
(%) (%)

Model ‘A’ 0.08 50,000 0.4198 -0.0199 0.1949 0.0228 µ (-) 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5

Model ‘A’ 0.1 50,000 0.5191 -0.0245 0.2427 0.0282 10,000 0.0% 49.3% 0.0% 93.6%

Model ‘B’ 0.1 10,000 4.7610 0.2423 3.1130 0.2116 50,000 0.0% 44.7% 0.0% 89.5%

Model ‘B’ 0.5 10,000 7.1070 0.3046 6.0280 0.3023 100,000 0.0% 43.8% 0.0% 87.8%

Model ‘B’ 0.1 50,000 4.9770 0.3585 3.4520 0.3234

Model ‘B’ 0.5 50,000 7.2040 0.5170 6.5430 0.5246

the substrate. This discrepancy could be attributed to the
Model ‘B’ 0.1 100,000 5.0230 0.4017 3.5220 0.3636 fact that model ‘A’ is a considerably more simplified model,
Model ‘B’ 0.5 100,000 7.2210 0.6327 6.6160 0.6270 that is, the friction between the mat foundation and the
subsoil is modelled by reducing the stiffness values of the
horizontal elastic bonds. These results serve to confirm
Table 4: Maximum stresses S11 = σx and S22 = σy depending on
stiffness kz and friction coefficient µ.
the assumption that was made at the beginning of section
3, that is, that model ‘A’ underestimates the stresses in the
kz σx σy concrete, and that model ‘B’ is a more appropriate model.
(kN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) As shown in Table 4 and Figure 13, the maximum
tensile stresses S11 = σx and S22 = σy are contingent on the
µ (-) 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 stiffness kz and the friction coefficient µ. Table 5 and
10,000 4.761 7.107 3.113 6.028 Figure 14 illustrate the variation in maximum stresses,
50,000 4.977 7.204 3.452 6.543
designated as Dσx and Dσy, in relation to the stresses at
kz =10,000 kN/m3. The percentage change in stress was
100,000 5.023 7.221 3.522 6.616
calculated using the following formula, for example: Dσx
= (4.977/4.761 − 1)×100% = 4.5%. For a constant value of
Table 5: Change of maximum stresses Δσx and Δσy in relation to the friction coefficient µ, increasing the value of stiffness
stresses for kz =10,000 kN/m3. coefficient kz causes an increase in stresses σx and σy (see
Table 4 and Fig. 13).
kz Δσx Δσy
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 15, the percentage
(kN/m ) 3
(%) (%) changes in maximum stresses, designated as Dσx and
µ (-) 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 Dσy, are shown as a function of stresses for µ = 0.1. In this
instance, the percentage change in stress was determined
10,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
using the following formula, for example: Dσx = (7.107/4.761
50,000 4.5% 1.4% 10.9% 8.5% − 1)×100% = 49.3%. For a constant value of the stiffness
100,000 5.5% 1.6% 13.1% 9.8% coefficient kz, an increase in the value of the friction
 Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage stresses in foundation reinforced concrete elements 131

Figure 13: Maximum stress σx = S11 and σy = S22 depending on stiffness kz and friction coefficient µ.

Figure 14: Change of maximum stresses Δσx and Δσy in relation to stresses for kz =10,000 kN/m3.

coefficient µ leads to an increase in stresses σx and σy (see the y-direction shows a more substantial increase, with a
Table 4 and Fig. 13). similar alteration in the friction coefficient yielding an
As shown in Figure 15, an increase in the friction average increase of less than a factor of two in stress (an
coefficient results in an increase in stress in the concrete. increase of 190%, to be precise).
A five-fold increase in the friction coefficient, and thus As shown in Figures 16 and 17, it can be concluded
a five-fold increase in the friction forces, results in an that the influence of sub-base stiffness is significant in the
average increase of less than one and a half times the stress case of weak soils; for soils defined as medium or strong
in the concrete (146% to be precise) in the x-direction, the (kz = 50,000 kN/m3 or kz = 100,000 kN/m3), no significant
contact pressure of which remains unchanged. Conversely, change in results is observed.
132 Jacek Grosel, Wojciech Pakos

Figure 15: Change of maximum stresses Δσx and Δσy in relation to stresses for µ = 0.1.

Figure 16: Maximum stress σx depending on the friction coefficient µ and stiffness kz.

4 Conclusions and summary substrate, which has been analysed in this paper. This
conclusion is significant, given that the Winkler model is
The numerical analyses conducted in this study indicate predominantly employed in design practice. This model is
that the conventional method of modelling the interaction accurate for calculating bending moments in slabs but is
of the structure with the soil, namely the Winkler basis, inadequate for evaluating shrinkage effects.
does not adequately account for the shrinkage stresses in The significant discrepancies, observed in the results
reinforced concrete elements. It is, therefore, recommended of models ‘A’ and ‘B’ (rows 2 and 3 of Table 3), with an
that this connection be modelled with greater precision 11-fold increase in σx stresses and a 15-fold increase in σy
than the linear–elastic Winkler model, for instance, by stresses in model ‘B’, confirm that the Winkler model is
employing the interaction model of the Mohr–Coulomb insufficient to adequately model the shrinkage of concrete
 Effect of structure–ground interaction on shrinkage stresses in foundation reinforced concrete elements 133

Figure 17: Maximum stress σy depending on the friction coefficient µ and stiffness kz.

of reinforced concrete – When it should not be neglected.

elements under substrate interaction conditions. These Materials and Design, 51, 1060–1070.
differences, exceeding an order of magnitude, underscore [6] Bažant, Z.P. (1975). Theory of creep and shrinkage in concrete
the limitations of the Winkler’s model. structures: a precise of recent developments. Mechanics Today,
The next research step, already mentioned in this 2, edited by Nemat-Nasser, S., Pergamon Press, New York, USA.
article, is to investigate the influence of foundation loading [7] Dacko, M., Nowak, J. (2010). Numerical simulation of stress
and strain state induced by shrinkage of concrete in large-size
and the consequent increase in frictional forces between
plate. Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, 17(1), 93-99.
the foundation and the subsoil, while considering the [8] Flaga, K. (2002). Shrinkage of concrete and its effect on load-
influence of shrinkage from drying. In future research, it bearing capacity, serviceability and durability of reinforced and
would be worthwhile to carry out a numerical analysis of prestressed concrete structure. Wyd. PK. Kraków. [in Polish].
the shrinkage of mat foundations and footings founded [9] Shadravan, S., Ramseyer, Ch., Kang, T. H.-K. (2015). A
long term restrained shrinkage study of concrete slabs on
on cohesive and non-cohesive soils. Further analyses
ground. Engineering Structures, 102, 258-265. [Link]
should also consider a certain series of footing types, that org/10.1016/[Link].2015.08.018.
is, the most typical dimensions of the structure and, more [10] Golubińska, A., Grzeszykowski, B., Knauff, M. (2018).
specifically, the aspect ratio, degree of reinforcement and Calculation examples for reinforced concrete structures. Volume
soil types. 3, Crackig, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Warszawa. [in Polish]
[11] Flaga, F., Furtak, K., Jargiełło, J. (1984). Application of the
modified ageing theory to the estimation of compressive stress
relaxation in reinforced concrete elements, Archiwum Inżynierii
References Lądowej, XXX (4), PWN. 665-676. [in Polish]
[12] Abaqus FEA software, Dassault Systemes, https://
[Link].
[1] Gilbert, R.I., Ranzi, G. (2011). Time-Dependent Behaviour of
[13] Bowles, J. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw
Concrete Structures. Spon Press, London and New York.
Hill.
[2] Džolan, A., Kožul, M., Harapin, A., Ćubela, D. (2020). Analysis
[14] Klemczak, B., Flaga, K., Knoppik-Wróbel, A. (2017). Analytical
of the concrete shrinkage effects on the real behavior of the
model for evaluation of thermal–shrinkage strains and stresses
spatial concrete and reinforced concrete structures using the
in RC wall-on-slab structures, Archives of Civil and Mechanical
thermal analogy. Engineering Computations, 37(4), 1451-1472.
Engineering, 17(1), 75-95.
[3] Gribniak, V., Kaklauskas, G., Bacinskas, D. (2008). Shrinkage in
[15] Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General
reinforced concrete structures: a computational aspect. Journal
rules and rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering
of Civil Engineering and Management, 14(1), 49–60.
structures EN 1992-1-1: 2024-05.
[4] Neville, A. M. (2011). Properties of concrete. Pearson, London.
[16] [Link]
[5] Gribniak, V., Kaklauskas, G., Kliukas, R., Jakubovskis, R.
[Link], access: 02.2025.
(2013). Shrinkage effect on short-term deformation behavior