This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Design and Analysis with a Practical Approach
SHARAT CHANDRA CUPTA
Advisor, Indian Buildings Congress, Former Chief Engineer Central Public Works Department
PUBLISHING FOR ONE WORLD
NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED, PUBLISHERS
New Delhi Bangalore Calcutta Chennai Guwahati Hyderabad Lukhnow Mumbai Pune

.
Copyright O 1997 New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers NEW A G E INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED, PUBLISHERS NEW DELHI BANGALORE CALCUTTA CHENNAI GUWAHATI HYDERABAD LUCKNOW MUMBAI PUNE
: : : :
:
: : : :
4835124, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi110 002 35, Annapoorna Complex, South End Road, Basavangudy, Bangalore560 004 4018, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta700 019 20, IInd Main Road Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai600 020 Pan Bazar, Rani Bari, Guwahati781 001 1241219, Gaganmahal, Near A.V. College, Domalguda, Hyderabad500 029 18, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow226 001 1281A. Noorani Building, Block No. 3, First Floor. L.J. Road, Mahim, Mumbai400 016. 44, Prashant Housing Society, Lane No. 6, Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune4 1 1029.
This book cr anypart there of may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher
This book is not to be sold outside the country to which it is consigned by New Age International (P) Limited
ISBN :8122410782
Published by H.S. Poplai for New Age International (P) Limited, 4835124, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi 110002. Typeset by EPTECH, and printed ai Ram Printograph, C114, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi110020. Printed in India Production : M.I. Thomas
CONTENTS
Preface
i
t I
1.
INTRODUCTION NEED OF RAFT FOUNDATION TYPES OF RAFT FOUNDATION SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE Foundation Engineering by Peck, Hansen and Thornburn 1 Foundation Design and Practice by Elwyn. E.S. Seelye 4.2 4.3 Foundation Design by Teng Foundation of Structures by Dunham 4.4 4.5 Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundation  IS 29501965 Raft Foundation  The Soil Line Method of Design by A.L.L. Baker Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundation 1.S : 2950 (PartI) 1973 Foundation Engineering Handbook Edited by' Hans F. Winterkorn & Hsaiyang Fang Foundation Analysis and Design by Joseph. E. Bowels Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318  77) Foundation Design and Construction by M.J. Tomlinson Design of Combined Footings and Mats ACI Committee 336 Pile Foundation Analysis and Design by H.G.Poulos and E.H. Davis 1980 Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook by Charles E. Reynolds and James C. Steedman  9th Edition 1981 IS 2950 (Part I) 1981 Code for Design and Construction of Raft Foundation Part I ~esi~n Eleventh International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering San Francisco, August 12  16,1985 Foundation Design and Construction by M.J. Tomlinson, 5th Edition, 1986
2.
3.
I I
4.
1
i
CONTENTS i Handbook of Concrete Engineering Mark Fintel .6 Modulus of SubGrade Reaction 5.Method of Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k value) of Soils in Field 5. January.Principles and Practices by Nainan P.5. DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 5. 1986 Reinforced Concrete Designer Handbook by Charles E. 1992 Designs of Foundation Systems .6 Summary STRUCTURALDESIGNERS DILEMMA 6.2 Flexible Approach 5. Kwian.1 Study 1 7. 7. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering in March. December.1 Recommended by Bowles 5. published by the Institution of Structural Engineers.1 Proposed by IS : 2950 (Part I) 1981 5.3 Parameters for Raft Design Pressure Distribution Under the Raft 5. U. Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlements of Foundations . 1994 Soil Structure Interaction The Real Behaviour of Structures.3 18 . 4th Edition.K.ACI . Calcutta.5. IS 8009 . 1989 5.6.6.2nd Edition. 1991 Design of Combined Footings and Mats .1989 Foundation Engineering Hand book by HsaiYangFang 2nd Edition.1981 5. U.2 ACI Committee.1 Examples Selected 7.6. New Delhi. 336 5. 1988 Proceedings of Indian GeoTechnical Conference 1992. STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERSON DESIGN OF RAFT 38 7.4.K. 10th Edition.1.Part I . Reynolds and James Steedman. 92141979 .6.6.4 5.1 Rigid Approach 5.S.3 I. Subjected to Sy_mmetrical Static Vertical Load. The Institution of Civil Engineers.Shallow Foundations.1978.1. Alarn Singh 5. 1992 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.3 Hetenyi's Criteria 5.2 IS : 2950 Part I Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundation 2950 .5 Rigidity Criteria 5.Part I .5.6.ACI committee 336 2R . 1988 Building Code Requirements in Reinforced Concrete .88 Published in ACI Manual 1993 Foundation Analysis and Design by Bowles.5 Recommendation by Alpan and Prof.2 Raft Size 40 41 41 . 5.
1.3 Comparison of results 8.4.3 Soil Investigation ! : 7.2.4.5.1.3 1 t t 7.2 7. I I I 8.1 Example Details 7.6 Discussions of Results 7.4 Design Procedures being Used Example Selected Soil Data Methods of Analysis Studied 8.3 Conclusion Study 3: Comparison with Conventional Rigid Methods Details of Conventional Method: Combined Footing Approach 7.2 Continuous beam analogy :inverted floor 8.4.2. STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 8.5 : .5 Summary of Results Discussions Conclusions t i ! 8.1 Combined footing approach 8. 10.1.4.5 Analysis 7.3.CONTENTS 5 7.4 ! 1 I 1 7.2.3 8.6 8.1 Example Selected 7.5. Another Office Building 7.3 Effect of Earthquake Loads and Moments 8.7 Conclusions Study 2 Effect of Horizontal Loads 7.3 Discussions of Results 7.2 Examples Selected 7.1 8.2 Piled RafPAnalysis Based on Finite Element Approach Study of Parameters Influencing the Raft Behaviour 8.2 Comparison of Results 7.4. JOINTS IN RAFl'S SUMMARY OF STUDIES .1.5 Conclusions Study 4.1.3.1.7 9.4 Effect of End Bearing and Friction Piles 8.2 Discussion of Results 7.4 Conclusions ' 8.4.1 7.3.4.3.5.2 Effect of Superstructure and Retaining Walls on Foundation Stiffness 8.3 Discussion of Results 7.5.5.2 8.4.1 Conventional Rigid Method with Simplified Models 8.3.4.4 Inverted Floor Method 7.1.1 Effect of Raft Stiffness on the Pile Loads and Raft Moments 8.4 Load Considered in Study 7.1.
GUIDELINES APENDM .2 Flexible Raft .ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES A.HODOF ANALYSIS 12.CONTENTS 11.Beam on elastic foundation A.3 Piled RaftPlate on elastic foundation . FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF MET.l Conventional Rigid Method .Combined footing approach A.
soil from which foundations derived their support and on whose behaviour its own behaviour depends. if not impossible. ease of construction and performance. the first institute of national importance. popularly known as 'father of soil mechanics'. when the author was a student of Civil Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology. make exact solution impractical. taking into account not only structural adequacy but also such nonquantifiablefactors as aesthetics.1 Foundation engineering has been practised as an art. it has not been able to decrease the importance of the accumulated experience of the ages. modifies the original concept in the light of analytical results. Though study of soil mechanics has provided us with new techniques for selecting appropriate type of foundation and predicting the behaviour of completed structures. The design process is characterised by a complex interaction of parameters and the need to arrive at decisions based on incomplete data Intuitive decisions which have to be taken.INTRODUCTION I i t In 1957. since time immemorial upto 1920 when it had achieved a considerable amount of refinement. It is a combination of art and science. The process is repeated until the designer is satisfied with thefinalproduct. !\ 1. i. An engineer uses all his resources of knowledge experience and imagination to produce a trial scheme. It was in the earlier 1920s that a concerted effort was made to study and undentand the physical laks governing the behaviour of sub surface materials. the author only wonders how true the statement of his Professor was and how much more it is true in case of foundation engineering.. without help of science. there is no direct procedure leading to the solution of a specific problem. made successful attempt to explain the phenomenon of settlement oti a scientific basis. appear to be diametrically opposite to the logical nature of . one of his professors of Civil Engineering at his first lecture in the class said: "Civil Engineering is 50% common sense but common sense is that sense which is quite uncommon. Amount of uncertainty and degree of variation in the properties of soil and number of parameters on which performance of a foundation depends. As a rule.e. With so much of advancement in science and computer application. Kharagpur.. " After 34 years of experience in Civil Engineering construction and design. He then constructs a mathematical model of such a solution to assess its adequacy and ifnecessary.. ' . This is the time when study of soil mechanics was started and it was in 1919 when Karl Terzaghi. structural design is still defined as:I5 a creation of a structuralfonn to satisfy a number of requirements.
examine the implications of the socalled more sophisticated approaches and finally make recommendation for the method which can be followed by a designer till he accumulates enough experience so as to select his own method particularly applicable to his problem. give their comparative limitations. it is not practical for any designer to go through the various approaches as available in engineering literature at a particular time. the cost of design. various publications and papers give widely different approaches to design of raft foundations. when faced with a task of designing a raft foundation. at a stage behind structural analysis and design for superstructure. therefore. above all. compare their merits and demerits and select the most suitable for his purpose. and even now continues to be practised more as an art and will probably continue to be done so. He. perforce selects a particular textbook and applies the same to his problem. acceptance of the design by the client and the professional community in general and decide the method of design to be followed by him. 1. be studied in this background. the need of adequate safety and. therefore.2 Available textbooks. finds himself in a precarious position where he has to balance the time available for design. Generally. A designer. but to give him a comparative idea of available approaches with sufficient number of references which he can study during the beginning of his profession and formulate his own opinion in due course but still continuing to design satisfactory raft foundations. Intention of this publication is not to hinder initiative of an individual in going deeper in any problem. for many years to come. quite often little realising that the theoretical problem dealt with in the textbook is widely different from his practical problem relating to an actual building.2 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Foundation design and analysis is. Resulting solution may not be as satisfactory as he feels. This publication should. An effort has been made in the following chapters to explain the various approaches suggested in literature. . handbooks.
2. thus. (f) Buildings where basements are to be provided or pits located below ground water table. Let us now examine each of the above situations in greater detail. Raft or Mat foundation is a combined footing that covers the entire area beneath a structure and supports all walls and columns. (g) Buildings where individual foundation. if provided. maximum total settlement which . (e) Floating foundation cases wherein soil is having very poor bearing capacity and the weight of the superstructure is proposed to be balanced by the weight of the soil removed. Every structure has a limiting differential settlement which it can undergo without damage. water towers. (b) Whenever soil contains compressible lenses or the soil is sufficiently erratic and it is difficult to define and assess the extent of each of the weak pockets or cavities and. chimneys. (c) Raft foundation equalises the differential settlement and bridges over the cavities. (d) Where structures naturally lend themselves for the use of raft foundation such as silos.NEED OF RAFT FOUNDATION. This raft or mat normally rests directly on soil or rock. Raft foundation is generally suggested in the following situations: (a) Whenever building loads are so heavy or the allowable pressure on soil so small that individual footings would cover more than floor area. will be subjected to large widely varying bending moments which may result in differential rotation and differential settlement of individual footings causing distress in the building. The amount of differential settlement between various parts of a structure supported on a mat foundation is much lower than that if the sarne. (c) When structures and equipment to be supported are very sensitive to differential settlement. use of raft foundation gives threefold advantage: (a) Ultimate bearing capacity increases with increasing width of the foundation bringing deeper soil layers in the effective zone. elc. (b) Settlement decreases with increased depth.structure was supported on individual footings and had undergone the same amount of maximum settlement. estimate the overall and differential settlement. With these considerations. but can also be supported on piles as well.1 In case of soil having low bearing pressure.
However while constructing such foundations. little settlement. may be large and may make raft foundation uneconomical. it is only a part of the total load which comes on the bottom soil and.2 Some designers work on the rule that if more than 50%of the area of the structure is occupied by individual footings. increase in width of the foundation may not always lead to higher bearing capacity. be noted that if in a case deeper layers of soil are of very poor quality. For low values. it may be more economical to excavate the entire site to a level formation. it has been recommended that interference effects need not be considered in designs. allows a higher bearing capacity for such situations. In these cases. it may be advantageous to provide individual footings so that the zone of influence of the footings remains within the top stronger layer. Quite often.3 Situations exist in practice w h p a soil stratum contains compressible lenses or the soils have a formation where individual layers of soil are neither parallel nor can be reasonably stratified into different layers of known properties to enable calculations of settlement to a reasonable accuracy. be aware of the possibility of their existence in some special circumstances 11. if provided. This is not true and quite often. however. and adoption of raft foundation is more or less necessary by the particular nature of the problem involved. These are special cases. There are practically no such effects in the case of punching shear failure. 2. there being no change in the stresses in the soil beneath the basement and. In such a situation. 2. In situation where comparatively s h a l l y top layers of soil are underlain with deeper layers of much poorer soils.4 Situations. therefore. In such situations. I I 1 I I I . doubt exists about the structural behaviour of individual footings touching each other. For these and other reasons. they are negligible though for high values they appear to be significant. In such situations. It should be considered that it is possible to construct alternate footings by using spacer pads against already laid footings and thus save form work cost. The basement provided. It has been reported that the effect of adjacent footings may vary considerably with the angle of shearing resistance. construct individual closed space footings (sometimes touching each other) and then backfill around them. in practice it is rarely possible to balance the loading so that no additional pressure comes on the soil. gives additional space in the building for the owner and can be made use of. 2.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS can be allowed for a particular structure on mat foundation is more than what is permitted when the structure is resting on individual footings. This problem of interaction of footings has been studied by many researchers. thus. it is possible to construct a building inducing a much larger load than the soil would have otherwise supported. are explicit and do not require further explanation. as mentioned in (c) and (d) above. individual footings. However. provision of a mat foundation may be disadvantageous. It is also stated that these effects are considerably reduced as length over breadth ratio of the footings approaches unity. however. necessitating carryover of stresses from one part of the raft to the other part. in such cases still. thus. Adesigner should. however. it is necessary to provide an overall raft. one must weigh form work costs against the extra footing material required by using mat foundation. the quantity of reinforcing steel and concrete required to avoid excessive deflection and cracking of a raft carrying unequal column loads. particularly if a footing is surrounded by other footings on both sides. It may. 2. However.5 In cases where soil is very soft and highly compressible and the buildings cannot be founded on such soils in normal circumstances. would undergo widely varying settlements resulting in large differential settlement which cannot be tolerated by the structure. it may be possible to provide the building with a basement in such a manner that weight of the structure is equal to the weight of the soil removed and. This. therefore.
raft also helps in making the basement water tight. suitability. causes concentration of stresses at the junction of the thin slabs and footings and also at the junction of basement walls and raft causing cracks to develop. There can always be differences of opinion about the solution decided by him. ' 2.NEED OF RAFT FOUNDATION 5 reconsolidation of the soil.. It is inconvenient and often impossible to provide temporary raking struts to support a basement retaining wall until such time as strutting given by ground floor or intermediate basement floor is completed. i. Mats or rafts are supported on piles'in cases where subsoil conditions warrant provision of piles. This arrangement. it cannot be helped because foundation design still continues to be practised more as an art than an exact science. longterm built up of surface water accumulating against basement walls and bottom should be allowed for. be seen that it is not possible to lay down hard and fast rules defining situations wherein a raft foundation is required. if provided.1 mm per second) or of large surface areas draining towards the building. presents difficulties in water proofing. decreasing the effectiveness of the shear walls and also creating difficulties by way of large differential settlements. ease of construction. 2. therefore. areas on sloping ground near hillocks. Two artists seldom agree. but as already mentioned in chapter I .6 Basements located below ground water table should use a mat as their base to provide water tight c. therefore. Raft. The author. but one has to have the basement. shear walls sharing most of the horizontal load subjecting its footings to larger settlements and rotation.The alternative of having individual columns footings connected by thin slabs has not proved to be successful in most of the cases. The basement walls should also normally be designed as selfsupporting cantilever retaining walls even though they may eventually be strutted by floor construction. should always be considered and necessary steps be taken to prevent detrimental effects. should not be resorted to unless the economy is of such a magnitude as to outweigh all other considerations. Even in cases where subsoil water level is low and basement does not extend below ground water table. safety and select a type which in his judgement would serve the purpose well. therefore.e. excessive differential settlement or possibility of exceeding the allowable bearing capacity of the soil at some location. compare their cost. It would.onstruction. . opines that every designer should learn all that he can within reason about the conditions at site.7 Situations also arise when isolated footings are subjected to very large eccentric loadings. which has swelled as a result of removal of over burden pressure in excavating for the substructure. This can happen when the building consists of shear walls and columns. This is particularly so in case of impermeable soils (permeability coefficient below 0. In such situations. will even out these deformations. and one is faced with the possibility of excessive footing rotation. determine the types of foundations that are practical.
This type is most suitable where the column loads are moderate and the column spacing fairly small and uniform. usefulness of the basement is destroyed unless the entire foundation is lowered and the gap filled up or an upper slab is provided supported on these inverted beams to form the ground floor of the structure. (c) Cellular raft or framed raft with foundation slab. Cellular raft consisting of foundation slabs.TYPES OF RAFT FOUNDATION Raft can be classified into various types on the basis of criteria used for classification. walls.1 Based on the method of their support. (b) Raft supported on piles. . but it creates considerable amount of uncertainties. If the beams are deep.4 Buoyancy raft are necessarily to be provided with a basement so that the weight of the soil removed balances to a large extent. columns and ground floor slab can be designed. and (c) Buoyancy raft. 3. This can be with pedestals or without pedestals. impairing the bearing value of the soil because of its disturbance. ribs placed below the basement floor or raft. These rafts. 3. these can be classified as: (a) Plain slab rafts which are flat concrete slabs having a uniform thickness throughout.2 On the basis of structural system adopted for the structure of the raft. raft is designed as a slab of uniform rhickncss. columns and one of the floor slabs acting together to give a very rigid structure. If the beams are projecting up. have many obvious difficulties. however. (b) Beam and slab raft which can be designed with down stand beam or upstand beam systems.Water proofing in case of basements becomes more complicated arid involved. the imposed load. difficulty of construction and quite often even in such cases. 3. raft can be: (a) Raft supported on soil. Raft of uniform depth is most popular due to its simplicity of design and construction.3 Slab and beam raft is used as a foundation for heavy buildings where stiffness is the principal requirement to avoid excessive distortion of the super structure as aresultof variation in the load distribution over the raft or the compressibility of the supporting soil. walls. the bottom of the excavation becomes badly cut up with trenches. Pedestals are utilised to distribute the load on a bigger area in case of heavy column loads. 3.
1 RAFT SUPPORTED ON PILE . has an additional advantage of providing better waterproofing treatment ease of reinforcement fabrication and laying of concrete. as a slab of uniform thickness. 3..1 Various types of rafts .F T S U P P O R T E D ON SOIL BUOYANCY RAFT  FLAT PLATE RAFT  i ' FLAT PLATE WITH PEDESTALS :  BEAM AND SLAB RAFT  FRAMED RAFT  Fig. 3. This type of raft is most commonly used.R A. Various types of rafts are shown in Fig.TYPES OF RAFT FOUNDATION 7 Raft.
Rafts are sometimes designed as if they rested on a bed of closely and equally spaced elastic springs of equal stiffness. Hansen and hornb burn^ Raft is usually regarded and designed as an inverted continuqus flat slab floor supported without any upward deflections at the columns and walls. differential settlementsmay lead to substantial redistribution of moments in the slabs resulting in unconservative design. On the other hand. Since the moment and the shears are determined on the basis of the average pressure. The method is valid when the columns are more or less equally loaded and equally spaced. The soil pressure acting against the slab is commonly assumed to be uniformly distributed and equal to the total of all column loads multiplied by appropriate load factors and divided by the area of the raft. 4. If the downward loads on some areas are on the average much heavier than on others. On account of erratic variation in compressibility in almost every soil deposit. often with complete success. there are likely to be correspondingly erratic deviations of the soil pressure from the average value. Once the bending moments and shear forces are known. it has also sometimes led to structural failure not only of the slab but also of the super structure. its limitations must be clearly understood. The moment and shears in the slabs are determined by the use of appropriate coefficient listed in the specifications for the design of flat slab floors. This method has been widely used. Therefore. structural design does not present any difficulty and there exists no difference of opinion in this respect except very minor difference relating to desired thickness of slab and the effectiveness of the shear reinforcement Methods suggested by different authors are summarised below.SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE Testbooks and design manuals by various authors suggest varying approaches to analysis and design of raft foundation.1 Foundation Engineering b y Peck. shear forces for the design of raft. These have been arranged chronologically with reference to date of publication of the testbooktdesign handbook. The contact pressure beneath any small area is then proportional to the deflection of the spring . it is considered good practice to provide this slab with more than theoretical amount of reinforcement and to use the same percentage of steel at top and bottom. The analogy follows only if the differential settlement between columns will be small and if the pattern of the differential settlement will be erratic rather systematic. Differences of opinion exist in the method of analysis proposed to be adopted while determining moments.
F and G divided by the area of D. There has not been any further edition of this book after 1956. there is no guarantee that the deflections of the raft will actually be unimportant. seelye9 According to Seelye after determining the soil pressures at various points of raft. For example. may be analysed as independent continuous or combined footings. It is reasonable to assume that the mat is so stiff and the load so constant that plastic soil will compress and adjust itself so that each column load will spread almost uniformly under the mat in the general vicinity of that particular column. Evaluation of 'K' design is difficult and fraught with uncertainty. The total bending moments acting on such section is equal to the sum of all moments to the left or right of this section.2 Foundation Design and Practice b y Elwyn. the total unit pressure under the rectangular area D. E. gives very high stress because it ignores the two way action of the mat. the soil reaction under each strip is determined without reference to the planner distribution determination for the mat as a whole. The mat is analysed as a whole in each of two perpendicular directions. it is not enough to provide great strength in the slab. E. has been reprinted in 1992.SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE 9 in that area and thus to the settlement. shear and moment diagrams can be constructed for bands assumed from centre of bay to centre of bay. Although. The recommendation in this book can be summarised in the following words: A great refinement of calculations is not always justified or practicable in case of raft. 4. The author gives other method like Finite Difference Method also for the design of the raft. There has not been any further edition of this book after 1962. However. However. G plus the weight of the mat per sq m.S. certain arbitrary reduction in values (15% to 33113%) is made. This method. Although the total shear and moments can be determined by the principles of simple statics. F. Therefore. undoubtedly. Whatever method may be adopted for design. E.be no further edition of this book after 1954.1 may be assumed equal to 114th of the total loads on the columns at D.foundations because of the uncertainties of the action of soil and of short thick members that are arranged in complicated and multiple systems. F. 4. Thus the total shear forces acting on any section cutting across the entire mat is equal to the arithmetic sum of all forces and reactions (bearing pressure) to the left orright of the section. In order to obtain some idea as to the upper limit of these values. each strip bounded on central line of the column bays. however. The book. E. it is assumed that the mat is infinitely rigid and that the bearing pressure against bottom of the mat follows the planner distribution. G shown in Fig. The constant of proportionality 'K' is called the modulus of subgrade reaction. a stiff foundation is likely to be subjected to bending moments far in excess of those corresponding to the flat slabsubgrade modulus analysis. It is also necessary to provide sufficient stiffness.3 Foundation Design b y en^' In the conventional method. There appears to. For the purpose of computing average pressure . If the column loads are used. the distribution along this section is a problem of highly indeterminate nature. 4. In case. the structure covers a fairly large area with possibilities of differential settlements. the average moment not being indicative of the sign and the magnitude of the bending moments in the individual strip in either direction. 65% of the moment is assumed to be resjsted by half the width of the band. the theory has been well developed but the value of 'K' for real soils is not constant and depends not only on the stress deformation characteristics of the soil but also in a complex manner on the shape for and size of the loaded area and the magnitude and position of nearby loaded areas.
2 time.5 Indian Standard Code of Practicefor Design and Construction of Raft Foundation IS 29501965'  There are two approaches for designconventional method and the elastic method. the entire thing being designed as an inverted floor. to the lower reinforcement in themat. what is determined by 45 degrees fiom the pedestal or column. However. tension in the top of the mat above the computed value. For this method. the smaller one and the columns should be arringed in reasonably straight rows. the outer column loads are treated as though they were concentrated at the columns. the load on adjacent columns should not differ very much and the bays in either direction should be reasonably. 4. There has been no further edition of this book after 1962. In the conventional method. The effective width of these strips or shallow beams has to be assumed and it is normal to take it slightly more than. Technically the top reinforcement of a central panel may be less than of the bottom. equal in length. however. Each column strip may be analysed by moment dishbution if the variation of loading or spans make this desirable. Fig. Soil pressures are also assumed to be planner so that the centroid of the soil pressure coincides with the line of action of the resulting forces of all the loads acting on the foundation.10 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS under the slabs. The method is normally used in design because of its simplicity . the foundation is considered infinitely rigid and pressure distribution independent of the deflection of the raft. The effect of hydrostatic pressure has to be considered wherever it is present. it may be advisable to reinforce both sides equally because any yielding of end restraint will increase the. the larger spacing not exceeding 1. 4. near the walls. The portion of the slabs in the central areas is taken up to be supported by this grid. A generous amount of reinforcement is provided to safeguard uncertainties caused .1 Plan of assumed columns strips and distribution of loads One method of making a preliminary analysis of such a mat is on the basis of an assumed supporting system of columns strips that constitute a grid of beam along the column rows in each direction.
contact pressure distribution is to be calculated based on Boussineq's Equation for Elastic Isotropic half space and is applicable when deformations of raft under loads are small as compared to the mean settlement of the structure. normally adopt the second method in which earth pressure is assumed to be uniform throughout and moments are obtained at any section by statics. The raft is anabjsed as a whole in each of the two perpendicular directions. and (ii) Based on modulus of compressibility (half space theory). The actual reinforcement provided shall be twice that worked out theoretically. the design of raft as a reversed floor is dangerous.7 Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Raft Foundation 1.The famous soil line method falls in this category. Kindly see para 4. and it is irrational or wasteful to provide for such moments without investigating the deflections and variation in soil pressure. ~ a k e q  According to Mr. In method (b). Engineers being aware of this. This code has been revised in 1973. who. There is no further edition of this book after 1969. Baker has.7. the soil is assumed as a continuous elastic medium obeying Hook's Law.S :2950 (PartI) 1973~ In the revised version of the code. feels that in the second method also high values of moments are obtained. In the other. however. code mentions that the coda1 provisions: (1) do not apply to large and heavy industrial construction where special considerations of the base pressure distribution will be required. therefore. As limitations to applicability of the methods.L. following methods of analysis have been proposed: (a) Assumption of linearly varying contact pressure (b) Perfectly rigid structures (c) Perfectly flexible structures (d) Structures stiffened along one axis (e) Structures stiffened along both the axis (f) General methods: (i) Based on modulus of subgrade reaction. He. it is assumed that the earth pressure varies throughout a beam according to straight line law. Elastic method has two approaches. the soil is replaced by an infinite number of isolated springs. which may or may not be present. .L. Method (a) corresponds to the conventional method in the earlier version of the code and has similar limitations. 4. Thus. total shear forces and total bending moments acting on any section cutting across the entire raft is equal to the arithmetic sum of all forces and reactions/moments to the left or right of the section. (2) apply only to fairly uniform soil conditions and for fairly horizontal planes of separation of layer below. Mr.I I I ! i SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE 11 I i ' I by differential settlement.6 I! ' RafL Foundation The Soil Line Method of Design by A. Baker. (3) foundations in seismic area and/or to vibrating load shall be given special considerations. 4. therefore. In one. The actual reinforcement can be oneandahalf times that required theoretically. suggested the soil line method which takes into account the variations in soil pressure and its relation to deflection but in order to simplify the calculations. These methods are applicable in case the foundation is comparatively flexible and the loads tend to concentrate over small areas.
4. the flexural deflection of the mat. Among computeroriented methods suggested is finite difference method. piles are assumed to be perfectly elastic. For this purpose.12 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Method (c) is applicable for structures which have relatively less stiffening members specially resting on very stiff foundation soil. combined and special footings and mat foundation respectively. Teng are authors of chapters on spread footings. (b) The contact pressure or the pile reaction are distributed in a straight line or a plain surface such that the centroid of the contact pressure coincides with the line of action of the resultant force of all the loads acting on the mat. In this case. Method (d) is something in between methods (b) and (c) . Analysis procedures have also been developed for the beams on the simplified elastic foundation concept. This foundation model is also referred to as Winkler foundation. Method (e) is same as method (b).effect of all the column loads within the zone of influence is calculated. When mat foundation is supported on piles.751h or when the mat is supporting a rigid superstructure. the mat is divided into square areas. Details given in the codedo not provide enough guidance to enable the analysis and design 10 be completed by the designer. Raft is considered to be rigid when the column spacing is less than 1.8 Foundation Engineering Handbook Edited by Hans F. based on the assumption that the subgrade can be substituted by a bed of uniformly distributed elastic springs with a spring constant equal to coefficient of subgrade reaction.Q. top and bottom. This book classifies the method of design of mat foundation according to assumptions used. the bending moment at any point in each direction is determined from theory of elasticity. Each band is assumed to act as an independent beam subjected to common contact pressure and known column loads. therefore. Apart from the limitations applicable in earlier version of the code it is stated that: (i) Allowable settlement both total and differential shall satisfy the requirement of the superstructure (ii) The approximate values of permissible settlements as given in earlier code have been deleted. The finite element method transforms the problem of plates on elastic foundation into a computeroriented procedure of matrix structural analysis. Here in the direction of the stiffened axis the contact pressure distribution is determined by Boussineq's Equation as in method (b). Bowles and Wayne C. The simplified elastic method assumes that the soil behaves like an infinite number of individual elastic springs each of which is not affected by others. The mat is idealised as a mesh of finite elements interconnected only . Chapter on floating foundation has been written by Dr. the deflections of the raft are same as the settlements of the foundation soil under external load. Please see para 4. The rigid method which is the conventional method assumes that: (a) Mat is extremely rigid as compared to the subsoil and. H.15. This code has further been revised. The mat is divided into perpendicular bands of width between centre lines of adjacent column rows. his same as defined by Heteny. The mat is considered as a plate and the effect of each column load is considered in area surrounding the load. In perpendicular direction distribution is determined as given in (f). Golder. The deflection at the nodal points of these areas is expressed by a differential equation in terms of deflection at the adjacent points to the right. Witerkorn & Hsaiyang an^'' Dr. Using the method of superimposition. Joseph E. These simultaneous equations are solved with an electronic computer and deflection at all the points are determined. left. does not alter the contact pressure. The two methods under (f) are elastic methods and are used when simplified methods from (a) to (e) are not applicable. Once deflections are known. The mat is analysed as a whole in each of the two perpehdicular directions.
soft clay.9 Foundation Analysis and Design by Joseph. the resulting internal stresses may be seriously in error. if the eccentricity is very large. The perpendicular direction is analysed similarly. It is further suggested that in a mat supported on hard rock. A generous amount of reinforcement running in both directions at top and bottom is suggested regardless of method of design used in view of the likelihood that the stresses actually introduced would bedifferent from those calculated irrespective of the method used foi analysis. For the series of beams.21. thus the interaction between the superstructure. the foundation and the soil is accounted for. Fig. Once the dimensions of the mat are established. however. soil pressures at various locations beneath the base may be computed.SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE 13 at the comers and the soil may be modeled as a set of isolated springs or as an elastic isotropic half space. the mat is subdivided into a series of continuous beams (strips) centred on the appropriate column lines as shown in Fig. The depth is selected to satisfy shear stresses and is usually constant but the steel reinforcement vary from strip to strip. soil pressure is calculated by the relation In case. it is commonly justified to design a mat on mud. 4. 4. On very soft soils. Please see para 4.2. shear and moment diagram may be established using either combined footinglanalysis or beam moment coefficient. Second edition of this book is published in 1991. E. With the pressure distribution known. the contact pressure against the mat foundation approaches planer distribution and. the column loads are transmitted to the rock on relatively small areas directly under the column. 4. peat. to complete the design. The matrix structural analysis can be extended to include the influence of the superstructure as well. A greater economy may be achieved by designing the mat by elastic methods. If resultant has eccentricity with respect to geometric centre. ~ o w e l s ' " The mat may be designed as rigid structures thereby soil pressure are computed as Q = V/A in the case where the resultant of the forces coincide with the centre of the mat area. organic soils or even medium clays by the conventional rigid method. therefore.2 .
paragraph 15. The basement walls should generally be designed as selfsupportingcantilever retaining walls even though they may eventually be supported by the floor construction and additional stability against overturning given by superstructure loading on top of the wall. which have been generally satisfactory and usually not much different from elastic solution. Possibly the reasons. ~ o m l i n s o n ' ~ Mr. as to why the methods have not been widely used in the past.11 Foundation Design and Construction by M .J . Tomlinson states that it is wrong in principal to assume that araft acts as an inverted floor slab on unyielding supports and to design the slab on the assumption that its whole area is loaded to the maximum safe bearing pressure on the soil as this canlead to wasteful and sometimes dangsrous designs. Various methods for elastic analysis like finite element and finite differences have also been explained in this book. Allowance must be made for deflection under the most favourable combination of dead and live load and variation in soil compressibility. to transfer the load to bed rock or other relatively incompressible strata.Basement rafts carrying heavy building on weak soils are often founded on piles. Please see Para 4. Guidance is required from the soil mechanics engineer on the estimated total and differential settlement for dead and live load considered separately.2 The Direct Design Method of Chapter 13 shall not be usedfor design of combinedfootings and mats. It would be seen that this code does not provide for much guidance in design of raft foundation. The basement floor slabs must be able . iir accordance with appropriated design requirements of this code. The experience has indicated that the solution obtained are generally reliable when the data are satisfactory. using heavy beams from column to column.10.20.10. are ease of making conventional solution. 4. Kindly see para 4. The piles also have the effect of stiffening the raft and reducing or eliminating reconsolidation of ground heave.10 relates to combined footings and mats. In such cases. This code has been revised several times.14 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS When the soil bearing pressure is low say 0. but the degree of flexibility must be related to the allowable distortion of the superstructure. pedestal. This paragraph reads as under: 15.3 Distribution of soil pressure under combined footings and mats shall be consistent with propemees of the soil and the structure and with establishedprinciples ofsoil mechanics. 15. The portion between beams is designed as a conventional one or two way slabs. Final being in 1989.10. New edition of this book is publisheg in 1988. or wall (combinedfootings or mats) shall be proportioned to resist the factored loads and induced reactions. When footings are designed as flexible members. thereby reducing differential settlement or tilting. the mat may be designed as an inverted flat slab.1 Footings supporting more than one column. considerable heave takes place with further upward movement caused by displacement due to pile driving. Some flexibility is desirable to keep bending moments and shear stresses to a minimum. After completion of piling.7 ) 8 71 Matters relating to design of footings are included in this code in Chapter 15. 15.5 ~ i ~ s l f(25 K N I ~or less and if the deformation of the mat t2 ~) surface can be tolerated. the swelled soil should be trimmed off to the finished level.23 4~10 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318 . the computation takes some form of the solution of a beam on an elastic foundation. Second reason is that the soil data are generally obtained using the standard penetration test for which no straight forward conversion to a value of modulus of subgrade reaction exists. The normal function of the piles is to transfer the loading to stronger and less compressible soil at greater depth or if economically possible.
Uniform conditions are considered to be those where the variation in adjacent column loads and spans is not greater than 20%. it is suggested that uniform or linear distribution of soil pressure can be assumed and the design based on statics. nonuniform column loads. Please see para 4.12 Design of Combined Footings and Mats ACI Committee 33614 i a 1 The committee observes that no authentic method has been devised that can evaluate all the factors involved in the problem and allow carrying out determination of contact pressures under combined footings and mats.Davis 1 9 8 0 ~ ~ : In this book." According to the author.H.Limitations which must be fulfilled to make this assumption valid have been discussed in the report. In case of rigid footings. Chapter 10 deals with piled raft systems. however it is clearly illogical to design the piles on an ultimate load basis when they have only been introduced in order to reduce the settlement on otherwise satisfactory raft. to pile the foundation and to choose the number of piles to give an adequate factor of safety assuming the piles take all the load. 4.13 Pile Foundation Analysis and Design by H.SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE 15 t g to withstand pressure on the underside of the slab together with stresses caused by differential settlement. The rigidity may result from the spacing of the columns on the footing from the rigidity of the footing itself or the rigidity of the superstructure. therefore. be made based on the knowledge of the interaction of the various elements of the system.17. 4. If the columns are provided with independent bases with only a light slab between them. The following factors should be considered while examining any problem: (1) Soil type immediately below the footing (2) Soil type at the greater depth (3) Size of footing (4) Shape of footing (5) Eccentricity of loading (6) Rigidity of footing (7) Rigidity of the superstructure (8) Modulus of subgrade reaction The committee suggests procedure to be followed for design of footings under two columns: grid foundations and smp footings supporting more than two columns and mat foundation. Distribution of soil pressure by means of subgrade reaction has been suggested where subsoils are of such character that the deformations are localised in the general vicinity of the loads and when the maximum contact pressure is smaller than about one and a half times the ultimate bearing capacity.e. there would be likelihood of failure of the slab from the pressure of the underlying soil. For cases where supporting columns are at random location with varying intensities of loads a detailed design procedure based on plate theories has been recommended.G. "in design of foundation for a large building on a deep deposit of clay it may be found that a raft foundation would have an adequate factor of safety against ultimate bearing capacity failure but the settlement would be excessive. The author says that. Fifth edition of this book has been out in 1986. Linear soil pressure distribution is suggested for footings which can be considered rigid to the extent that only very small relative deformations result from the loading. Simplifying assumption must.Poulos and E. once the have been introduced solely for the purpose of reducing the settlement . reaction from the retaining walls. traditional practice would then be. uniform condition and general condition. Flexible footing procedure is divided into 2 parts i.
the raft should be so designed that the centroid coincides with the centre of gravity of the loads.15 IS 2950 (Part I) 1981 Code for Design and Construction of Raft Foundation Part I ~ e s i ~ n ~  In the second revision of the code. length of the section in the bending axis and length perpendicular to the section under investigation. The value of K depends upon the flexural rigidity of the superstructure. poisson ratio of soil. It is assumed that purely elastic condition prevails upto the load at which the pile would fail if no cap were present and thereafter any additional load is taken entirely by the cap. to arrive at the settlement behaviour of the pile. modulus of elasticity of concrete and moment of inertia of the raft. the rf is analysed as a whole in each of the two perpendicular at directions on the basis of statics. In this method. in Chapter 5. it is assumed that .75A. thickness of the raft. two methods of analysis have been suggested depending upon the assumption involved. Conventionalmethod is applicable when either of the two conditions are satisfied. ie. It is further suggested that when the columns on the raft are not equally loaded or are not symmetrically arranged. As a further extension. 4. The rigidity of the foundation is determined with a relative stiffness factor K > 0. However. No details are given on &e method to determine the bending moment and shear forces in the raft.The method is further extended to group of piles upto about 40 numbers. relative stiffness factor K is greater than 0. Value of h depends upon modulus of subgrade reaction for the footing of the width of the raft. imposing the vertical displacement compatibility condition. the plan of the raft should be made so that the eccentricity of the total loading is a minimum. Curves are drawn which are applicable only for rigid rafts or perfectly flexible rafts. The entire emphasis is to work out the ratio of the load carried out by the piles and the raft soil system. the unit consisting of a single pile with an attached cap resting on the soil surface is considered.. modulus of the compressibilityof the foundationsoil.14 Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook by Charles E. In case of flexible footings. Reynolds and JamesC. If this coincidence of centre of gravity is impracticable owing to the extent of the raft being limited on one or more sides. 4. In this method. The pile is divided into number of elements and the expressions for vertical settlement of the pile and the soil at each element in terms of unknown stresses on the piles are obtained and solved. simplified methods are applicable when variation in adjacent column load is not more than 20% of the higher value and the structure (combined action of the superstructure and raft) may be considered as flexible. though this may produce a raft which is not rectangular in plan. Methods of determining value of K and hare given in the code.16 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS design question becomes not "how many piles are required to carry the weight of the structure" but "how many piles are required to reduce the settlement to an acceptance level". It is only mentioned that none of the simple methods are satisfactory and a proper analysis of plate on piles and continuum is desirable.5 or columns spacing less than 1. diameter of the pile. Steedman 9th Edition 1981"  This book suggests the analysis of a raft foundation supporting a series of symmetrically arranged equal loads on the assumption of uniformly distributed pressure on the ground considering the structure as an inverted reinforced concrete floor acted upon by the load of earth pressure from bottom. the settlement behaviour of a free standing pile is obtained from the elasticbased analysis. Conventional method assuming planner distribution of contact pressure is applicable to foundations which are rigid relative to supporting soil and the compressible soil layer is relatively shallow. The book gives charts indicating interaction factor between the raft and the pile for various values of length of the piles. height of soil layer over the rigid stratum and the cap diameter.5.
19 Reinforced Concrete Designer Handbook by Charles E. 4. but in commentary a reference has been made to 'design procedure for combined footings and mat i per report prepared by ACI committee 336'and also to a paper 'simplified design of footings by' Kramrisch. This method is more or less same as the famous soil line method. p. 1988~' There is no change in recommendations from what was done in the earlier edition published in 1981 4. (d) This code does not explicitly provide any guidance as to how factors emphasised in (a) and (b) above should be allowed for. 19. 1989 and 1992. Since the effect of a column load on the elastic foundation is damped out rapidly.20 Building Code Requirements in Reinforced Concrete ACI 318 1989~'  .16 Eleventh Intenationul Conference of Soil Mechanics a d Foundation Engineering San Francisco.ed footings and mats.SURVEY OF AVAILABLE IITERATURE 17 &' i : the subgrade conslsts of an infinite array of individual elastic springs each of which is not affected by others. as mentioned above. 1986%   This book makes no recommendation about raft foundation. Tomiinson.J. 5th Edition. . Building code requirements since their second edition in 1977 have gone in for further revision 1983. Reynolds and James Steedman. August 12 1 6 . The code also lays down that: (a) Size and shape of the foundation adopted affects the magnitude of subgrade modulus which should be taken into consideration. It is possible to determine the total effect at a point of all column loads with~nthe zone of influence by the method of superimposition. The computation of the effect at any point is restricted to columns of two adjoining bays in all directions. The distribution of deflection and contact pressure on the raft due to a column load is determined by the plate theory. 87. There has not been any further revision and this code was reaffirmed in 1987. 4. there was no recommendation or paper on design of raft foundation. (b) Consideration must be given to the increased contact pressure developed along the edges of the raft on cohesive soils and the opposite effect on granular soils. for flexible foundations are not satisfied . 1 9 8 5 ~ ~  In the conference while two papers were presented on instrumentation of pile raft foundation and cap pile soil interaction. (c) Expansion joint should be provided when the structure supported by the raft consists of several parts with varying heights and loads or there is a change in the direction of the raft.17 Foundation Design and Construction by M. 4. In the latest revision there is no change in the code requirements for design of combir. The second part of the code relating to construction aspect is still not printed. NOSM 5. 10th Edition. When conditions. October 1961. s Fritz and Rpgers Paul published in American Society of Civil Engineers Proceeding. 1986" There is no significant change in this edition from what was recommended in 4th edition 4. V.a method based on closed form of solution of elastic plate theory has been suggested.18 Handbook of Concrete Engineering Mark Fintei 2nd Edition.
(h) After propottioning the mat size. variation in soil properties both horizontal and vertical. (g) Mats may be designed and analysed as either rigid bodies or as flexible plates supported by elastic foundation. It is common practice not to use shear reinforcement so that mat depth is maximum. shears. Moments. the allowable soil pressure may be increased as allowed by the local code and in consultation with geotechnical engineer. Some designers perform several finite element analyses with soil springs calculated from a range of subgrade moduli to obtain an adequate design. (c) Caution should be exercised when using finite element analysis for soils. Where wind or earthquake forces form a part of the load combination. The spring properties are usually calculated using a modulus of subgrade reaction. tributary area to the node. . and change of modulus with depth.18 RAFT FOUNDKTIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS 4. That interaction may continue for a long time until final equilibrium is established between the superimpos&lloads and the supporting soil reactions. 4. A combination analysis is common in current practice. (b) Combined footings and mats are sensitive to time dependent sub surface response. Thus. The use of uncoupled springs in the model is a simplified approximation. effective depth. adjusted for footing size. and the soil. This report suggests that: (a) Maximum unfactored design contact pressure should not exceed the available soil pressure determined by geotechnical engineer. 1 9 9 1 ~ ~ This edition has omitted the chapter on mat foundation which was originally'included in first edition. Soil response can be estimated by modelling with coupled or uncoupled "Soil springs".22 Design of Combined Footings and Mats ACI committee 336 2R 88 Published in ACI Manual 1 ~ 3 ~ ~   1966 report mentioned in para 4. (f) For mat foundationsmodulus of subgrade reaction cannot be reliably estimated on the basis of field plate load tests because the scale effects are too severe. (d) The response of a footing is a complex interaction of the footing itself. Without good empirical results. However a number of factors like.21 Foundation Engineering Handbook by HsaiYangFang2nd Edition. Many structural engineers analyse and design mat foundations by computer using the finite element method. often can significantly influence the subgrade reaction values. soil springs derived form values of subgrade reaction may only be a rough approximation of the actual response of soils. compute the minimum mat thickness based on punching shear at critical columns based on column load and shear perimeter. I I\ * 1 I . difficulty in projecting subgrade responses. variety of superstructure loads and assumption in their development and effect of superstructure stiffness on mat rapidly reduce exactness to a combination of approximations. the superstructure above. mat shape. The time dependent characteristics of the soil response. and deflections can only be computed if these soil reactions can be determined.12 above was reaffirmed in 1980 but has been completely revised and elaborated in 1988. the use of a single constant modulus of subgrade reaction can lead to misleading results. (e) No analytical method has been devised that can evaluate all of the various factors involved in the problem of soilstructure interaction and allow the accurate determination of the contact pressures and associated subgrade response.The design is further affected by excavation heave. consolidation settlement or partial consolidation settlement. An exact theoretical design of mat as plate on an elastic foundation can be made.
4. This book also mentions about the design of raft foundation by the Soil line method stating that this method has . Since it is very difficult for the geotechnlcal engineer to provide accurate vdues of moGulus of subgrade reaction. The determination of mat deflection extends far beyond the analysis of a beam or finite element model to the prediction of subgrade response. December. 4. 1 9 9 2 ~ ~  The book details conventional approach to raft design as a flat slab and beam and slab raft. is more elusive than designers wish to admit. The prediction of subgrade response. varying the value of K over range of one half the furnished value to 5 or 10 times the furnished value. A very close working relationship must exist between the geotechnical and structural engineers to properly analyse comb~ned footings and mats. Since a mat transfers load honzontally. Calcutta. These strips are analysed as combined footings with multiple column loads and loaded with the soil pressure on the strip and column reactions equal to loads obtained from the superstructure analysis. 4. the structural designer may do the parametric study. (m) The analysis and design of combined footings and mats is a soilstructure interaction effort in which there is no unique method to determine mat deflection. any given strip may not satisfy vertical load summation. Among the design methods included are conventional or rigid methods as explained in earlier edition stating that this method is not recommended at present because of substantial amount of approximations and the wide availability of computer programmes which are relatively easy to use and mat being generally too expensive and important not to use most refined analytical method available.i I SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE 19 (i) In case column spacing is less than 1. (1) A mat analysis is only as good as the soil parameters. In any of these 3 methods node pressure should not exceed the safe bearing pressure value recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 1 9 9 2 ~ ~ This conference does not have papers relating to design and analysis of raft foundation. more on the inverted floor approach. (k) Computer aided finite differences. Experience with extensive measurements of both foundation loadings and subgrade response are needed to develop a high degree of confidence in the method selected.24 Proceedings of Indian GeoTechnical Conference 1992. finite element method and finite grid method applicable with computer. The approximate flexible procedure suggested by ACI Committee 436 (1966) has been retained and elaborated. Further details have been given for finite difference method. The report gives details of these 3 methods. mat may be designed by treating it as a rigid body and considering strips both ways. 4th Edition. following the Indian Standard Code of Practice. 1 9 8 8 ~ ~ In this edition analysis of mat foundation has further been elaborated considerably. The book only mentions that an integrated analysis of the beam and slab on the computer by the finite element method using package programmes such as SAP IV which will give exact results based on the actual behaviour of the system can be carried out.23 Foundation Analysis and Design by Bowles.25 Designs of Foundation Systems Principles and Prrictices by Nainan P. Kurian.75 divided by h or the mat is very thick and variation of column loads and spacing is not over 2096. Q) In case the criteria is not met with an approximate analysis can be made using the method suggested by ACI Committee 336 in 1966.finite grid or finite element methods can be used where computers are available. though part of the structural analysis of the mat.
these powerful analytical methods can be of considerable assistance enabling a designer to gain a feel for the behaviour of soil structure system. from reality. 1 Soil Structure Interaction The Real Behaviour of Structures. the report points out that engineers could estimate the settlements for a perfectly flexible load or they could estimate the avenge settlement of a rigid load but in between these limits. The raft will then be constructed and will be influenced by the differential settlement there after.K. such methods cause menace and can be extremely misleading. Pointing out that. the primary reason for inclusion of the piles is to reduce settlements. However. 1 9 ~ 9 ~ ~  I The above institutions constituted a joint committee under Dr. between piles and piles as the performance of a pile within a group is affected by the presence of other piles. Sam Thornborn which prepared this report. U. As the .Thepaper suggests that this distribution of load between the raft and piles be taken into account. (i) Red behaviour of structures in contact with ground involves an interactive process beginning with the construction phase and ending with a state of balance after a period of adjustment of stresses and strains within the structure and within the ground influenced by the structure. The Institution of Civil Engineers. However.20 RAW FOilNDATlONSDESlGNAND ANALYSIS 1I rather become obsolete in the wake of possibility of using more refined flexible methods with the aid of computer. Pari I relates to structures supported by ground and Part I1 for ground supported by structures. (b) Analytical methods have been developing so rapidly over the last few years that it is now possible to obtain solution to many complex problems which a few years ago would have been quite out of reach. Randolph was presented as a special lecture on design methods for Pile Groups and Piled Rafts. However. The key to successful use is to gain a clear understanding of the idealisations that are being made and to be aware of. The paper also gives methods by which this proportion of load between the two components are carried out. the engineers could say nothing. if used blindly. The paper recalls that in majority of the cases where piles form part of the foundation for a building or other structures. The key question that arises in the design of pile rafts concerns the relative proportion of load carried out by raft and the piles and the effect of additional pile support on absolute and differentialsettlements. once the decision has been made that piles are required the traditional design approach has been to ensure that the total structural load can be carried out by the piles. with adequate factor of safety against bearing failure. If used sensibly and with discernment. there is elastic interaction'between the raft and soil below. how far they may be. 4. (ii) Actual behaviour of the structure relates to the inherent spatial variations in the ground and it should be appreciated that these variations are not always readily identifiable by occasional and local boring. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering in March. U. published by the Institution of Structure Engineers.K. (a) Under structures supported by ground. (c) For a framed building founded on a raft. during excavation some heave of the soil will occur.F. 1 9 9 4 ~ ~ II i A paper by M. New Delhi January. 4. The report deals with the question of soil structure interaction in 2 parts.26 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.27 i I . sampling and testing..
Finally. In an extension of this method where elastic theory is used for strains only and then stresses are calculated using the various deformation moduli of the soil is better approximation. Rational design approach must be based on the results of an interactive analysis. In the design of raft foundation. the imposed load is applied. The results of analysis based on use of this model may be excessively sensitive to the pattern of applied load. have been listed in the appendix. Since the raft is in intimate contact with the supporting soil. . For soil model. Those experienced by the structural members will vary with location and elevation in the building. In a further improvement of a layered coniinuum the exact stresses and strains in a layered soil mass are calculated. The half space continuum using elastic theory for both stresses and strains has severe limitations because it does not take into account. the part of the structure in existence distorts and the overall stiffness gradually increases. The report has an appendix which has reviewed currently available techniques for the analysis of the total soil structure system. the interactive effects are perhaps most marked in consideration of its own behaviour. Super structure stiffness has a marked influence on the behaviour of the raft and should not be ignored although the quantitative assessment of all but the simplest of the wall system connected to the raft may prove difficult. it is pointed out that commonly known approach of treating the soil as a set of liner unconnected springs cannot be recommended for the analysis of rafts and continuous footings although this model has the advantage of being easily included in standard computer programmes for structural analysis. The likelihood of damage will diminish. it is totally unrealistic to ignore deformation and rely on moment and shears obtained from the analysis of the conventional flat slab method. However. More readily available computer packages that utilise these techniques. The relative deflections experienced by the raft will be the largest.the smaller the ratio of imposedldead loads and later the stage at which the finishes are applied. The cladding is then added and may substantially increase the stiffness of the building. the soil layering or the variation of soil modulus with depth within a given layer. It is equally unrealistic to compute deformation without consideration of the structural stiffness and then to design on the basis of the corresponding stress resultants. It is a poor physical model. Not all the components of the buildings are subject to the same relative deflection. the larger the proportion of medium and longterm settlements.SURVEY OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE i t (d) (e) (f) (g) structural load is applied short term settlements take place. The manner in which and the limitations with which superstructure can be modelled have been singled out. often the raft is itself a major contributor to the overall stiffness of the building.
e.e.DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS Summary of methods suggested by various authors discussed in Chapter 4 would indicate that basically two approaches have been suggested for analysing the behaviour of raft foundation: A.2 Flexible Approach In flexible foundation approach. Analysis is suggested basically on two theories (a) Flexible plate supported on elastic foundation. 5.. Pressure distribution is considered to be either uniform or varying linearly. i. differential settlements are comparatively low but bending moment and shear forces to which raft is subjected are considerably high. methods suggested include simplified methods subject to certain limitations which can be carried out by manual computation. Each spring is presumed to behave independently. Winklers's foundation Based on these two basic approaches. In this approach differential settlements are comparatively larger but bending moments and shear forces to which the raft is subjected are comparatively low. Flexible foundation approach 5. i. Rigid foundation approach B. Design of rigid raft follows convkntional methods where again following two approaches have been suggested: (a) Inverted floor system (b) Combined footing approach In rigid rafts. Hetenyi's Theory (b) Foundation supported on bed of uniformly distributed elastic springs with a spring constant determined using coefficient of subgrade reaction.1 Rigid Approach In rigid foundation approach.. it is presumed that raft is rigid enough to bridge over nonuniformities of soil structure. Also now available are computer based methods . raft is considered to distribute load in the area immediately surrounding the column depending upon the soil characteristics.
In case of piled rafts against the usual assumption of entire load being carried by piles alone. raft soil system and raft pile system. Finite element method transforms the problem of plates on elastic foundation into a computer oriented method of matrix structural analysis. For this purpose raft is considered to consist of beams in both the directions. i. These three parameters and method of their determination are discussed in subsequent paragraphs. settlement of foundation..e. rigidity of the raft. three basic parameters.. and the soil may be modelled as a set of isolated springs or as an elastic isotropic half space. i. i. flexible or soft (4) Rigidity of the superstructure (5) The quantum of loads and their relative magnitude (6) Presence of adjoining foundation (7) Size of raft (8) Time at which pressure measurements are taken The total settlement under the raft foundation can be considered to be made up of three components. Finite differences method is based on the second approach uf uniformly distributed elastic springs and can consider one value of subgrade modulus for the entire area. concept of beam on elastic foundation is also being used. The immediate component is that portion of the settlement which occurs simul .e. plate is idealised as a mesh of finite elements interconnected only at the nodes (corners). i. the foundation and the soil can be accounted for. however. The matrix structural analysis can be extended to include the influence of the superstructure as well. It is possible to consider different values of subgrade modulus in different areas of the raft foundation... Considering all these aspects it can be said that the contact pressure distribution under the raft depends upon: (1) The nature of the soil below the raft.e.e. In this method. soil characteristics and its behaviour are so much interrelated and their relationship so complex.3 Parameters for Raft Design In all these methods. The beam is then analysed as a bean1 on elastic foundation. that soil foundation structure interaction is not clear even now. Thus. the interaction between the superstructure. As a simplification of treating the entire raft as a plate. This problem has occupied many researchers theoretically and a lesser number experimentally with no exact values being known.DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 23 like finite element and finite differences methods. . Sc the consolidation settlement and S is the secondary s compression settlement. 5. A problem which has to be solved while designing a raft foundation is to evaluate the actual contact pressure of the soil against the raft. Each of these beams is treated as supported on springs having spring constant calculated using modulus of subgrade reaction and carrying column loads. whether rigid. emphasis is now being laid on sharing of load between raft supported on soil.. Sufficiently accurate methods for practical distribution of these loads are not yet available.e. i. pressure distribution under the raft and value of subgrade modulus become important in addition to whatever other info&ation'is received from soil investigation report. Contact pressure. S = Sd+Sc+Ss where Sd is the immediate or distortion settlement. a single homogenous mass or a layered formation. thicknesses of various layers and their relative locations (2) Properties of the soil (3) The nature of the foundation.
However. Incase. In reality we have a soil snucture interaction problem and there is a nonuniform soil pressure and differential settlements within the footings. The secondary compression settlement. dimensions of raft are generally such that the possibilities of encountering a different soil layer within the significant depth are quite large and as such it would be necessary to account for the different soil layers within the significant depth. if the upper stratum is relatively thin ignoring theeffect of layering.1 mm per second. effect is negligible if depth is greater or equal to 3. If simultaneously we accept the concept of soil being elastic (modulus of elasticity or coefficient of subgrade modulus).6 PIA with additional 0. it may have an appreciable influence on the contact pressure distribution and consequently settlements. in general. it may be necessary to design raft foundations of basement for water uplift also. it is necessary to consider long term built up water for design of basement and raft foundation. it takes considerable time for water to escape and thus settlement in cohesive soils continue much longer. The time rate and the relative magnitude of the 3 components differ for different soil types. The remaining components result from the gradual expulsion of water from the void and corresponding compression of the soil skeleton. Even in areas where subsoil water table is not present. The distinction between the consolidation and secondary compression settlement is made on the basis of physical process which control the time rate of settlement. therefore. we require a very flexible footing. uses the concept of a rigid fcotings and with rigid footing are associated the concept of uniform soil pressure.1 PIAalong edges would be reasonable . It is usual to assume that the soil below the foundation is an isotropic homogeneous material for its entire depth. Actually to have a uniform soil pressure distribution. In fact. This is likely to be of special importance when a compressive stratum is underlain by rock or a very hard or dense soil. In cohesive soil.24 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS taneously with the load application. If permeability coefficient of the soil is below 0. It is. The conventional analysis of footings. it has been reported that the pressure under a mat foundation on clay may vary from time to time. it would probably be sufficient if the soils were considered as a homogenous layer of indefinite depth. Moreover it is to be remembered that properties of soil constituting each layer which determine the shear strength characteristics and settlement characteristicsof the soil become more important as rafts are generally adopted in areas where soils of poorer types are'~ncounteredand which some years ago might have not been taken up for construction at all. It is very significant when this occurs within a depth equal to width of the footings. soil is cohesive and probability of surface water accumulated against basement walls exist'. Effect of groundwater table is appreciable on the load carrying capacity of the soil and consequently settlements. necessary to consider the expected ground water table in life time of the structure including the temporary rises as during floods. In such situations. But normally this is not the situation and we get different layers in varying thickness. having different properties below foundation. settlementof rigid footing will be uniform and that for a flexible footing the settlement would be nonuniform and but if this is the case then how can the contact pressure be uniform (under a rigid footing). Water flows so readily through most clean granular soil that the expulsion of water from the pores for all practical purposes is instantaneous and thus foundation settles almost simultaneously with the application of load. there is a stiff stratum underlain by a soft stratum like layer of sand over soft clay layer. Such presence decreases the settlement considerably. It has been suggested that in case of square footing resting on clay on average contact pressure of 0. If the thickness of the upper most layer is large relative to the dimension of the loaded area.the speed of settlement is controlled largely by the rate at which the soil skeleton itself yields and compresses.primarily as aresultof distortion within the foundation soils. Thesettlement is generally not elastic although it is calculated using elastic theory.5 b2. Consolidation settlements are largely due to primary consolidation in which the time rate of settlement is controlled by the rate at which water can be expelled horn the void spaces in the soil.1n case of raft.
Quantum of loads and their relative magnitude affect the contact pressure. Studies have shown that effect of adjacent footings may vary considerably with angle of shearing resistance. Here P is total load. A. The consolidation pressure involves expulsion of water from the soil being compressed. the contact pressure is changed leading to an increase in pressure over the centre of the loaded area in all cases. the measured settlements and consequently contact pressure distribution would be different.. Many times it may take several years to achieve final settlement. uniform contact pressure and lower values of bending and shear stresses in foundation members. length of the footing. In fact. For a rectangular footing of large length it is suggested that it would be reasonable to have an average pressure equal to 0. A flexible foundation with flexible super structure means large differential settlements. it is generally believed that contact pressure distribution under a raft could be of the following type as shown in Fig. In view of various factors affecting the pressure distribution under a raft foundation and difficulties in determining affect of each.1 Contact pressure distribution under a raft . It is generally recommended that interference effect may be neglected. a rigid foundation with a rigid super structure means less differential settlement. Situation can arise when a particular column of the building may be hanging from the superstructure and even transmitting the weight of attached soil mass to the super structure rather than transmitting any load from the superstructure to the foundation soil. DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 25 1 I 1 : i i : 1 : pressure distribution. large variation of contact pressure and high bending and shear stress in foundation members. For footings on sands a pressure distribution of uniform soil pressure is reasonable. 5. There are situations in engineering practice where footings are placed so close to each other that their zones of influence overlap. There are practically no effects in case of punching shear failure. When the loads are so high that bearing pressures are increased to the point of shear failure in the soil. ( c ) SOFT SOIL  Fig. area and B. 5.8 P average + 0. Arigid superstructurewill not allow differential settlement to take place in foundation. This takes time and at any time between the application of the load producing consolidation and the time at which essentially ultimate or 100 per cent consolidation has occurred. For low values they are negligible. .1.1 PIB for the edges. For higher values they appear to be significant particularly if footing is surrounded by others on all sides. Rigidity of foundation gets modified by the rigidity of superstructure.
A flexible foundation with a flexible superstructures and a comparatively rigid soil below will behave as a flexible foundation and would result in large differential settlements and low stresses. peet or organic soil by the conventional rigid method using uniform pressure. as shown in Fig. uniform deflections. A rigid foundation with a rigid superstructure on a comparatively compressible soil will result in uniform settlements of structure.5 Rigidity Criteria Whether a structure behaves as rigid or flexible.2): . (iii) The flexible member has comparatively smaller bending moments and deflection is maximum in vicinity of the loads and small values else where. (ii) An intermediate member. as the term implies. Thus: (i) Arigid member is characterisedby high bending moments and relatively small. soft clay. a rigid foundation would mean a foundation which is capable of bridging over pockets of soil with different properties and thus try to even out the settlements at various points. A greater economy can.1 (c). have comparatively lower values of differential settlement but higher values of stresses. A rigid foundation would. 5. but at what risk and is it really so ? Actual pressure distribution under the raft. it depends on the relative stiffness of the structure and the foundation soil.1 (b).1 (a) is applicable when the mat is supported on hard rock and column loads are transmitted to the rock on areas of relatively small size directly under the columns.The behaviour of the foundation as rigid or flexible will also depend upon the rigidity of the superstructure above and properties of soil below.1 Proposed by IS : 2950 (Part I) 19813 Appendix C of this standard gives the method of deciding rigidity of superstructure and foundation. 5. In physical terms. 5. If the raft rests on a stiff dense soil. it is commonly justified to design a mat on mud. perhaps. remains unanswered. Over all differential settlements are small. has intermediate bending and deflection values.  Rigidity criteria proposed by various authorities are discussed below: 5. therefore. In fact assumption of rigid footings with uniform soil pressure results in designing the raft for assumed bending moments which are larger than the actual bending moments. 5. Overall differential settlement would be of higher orders. The resulting design is conservative generally but may not be economical. therefore. Therefore. This is reproduced below: Rigidity of Superstructure and Foundation C1 Determination of the Rigidity of the Structure C1. then loads are distributed to the subsoil in relatively large areas. 5. be achieved by designing the mat with elastic methods. It is only on very soft soils that the contact pressure against the mat foundation approaches linear distribution as shown in Fig.5.1 Theflexural rigidity El of the structure of any section may be estimatcdaccotding to the relation given below (see also Fig.26 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Fig.
b = length or breadth of the s ructure in the direction of bending. 5. Il = Moment of inertia of lower column in cm4 If = hioment of inertia of foundation beam or raft in cm4. I.DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS Fig. H = total~height the infill In cm. =modulus of elasticity of frame material in kg/cm2 Ib = moment of inertia of the beam in cm4 J / .. = Length of upper column in cm. . = Moment of. I.2 Determination of rigidity of a structure where El = modulus of elasticity of the infilling material (wall material) in kg/crn2.inertia of the infilling in cm4. = Moment of inertia of upper column in cm4. of E. h. where 1 = Spacing of columns in cm. hl = Length of lower column in cm.
28 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Note :The summation is to be done over all the storeys.American Concrete Institute Journal.5.1 Whether a structure behave as rigid orflexible depends on the relative s t i m s s ofthe structure and thefoundation soil.replaces Pb and 1.1 Evaluation of the characteristics h is made as follows: where k = Modulus of subgrade reaction in kg/cm3 for footing of width B in cm B = Width of raft in cm. a = Length perpendicular to the section under investigation in cm. becomes zero. 5. d = Thickness of the raft or beam in cm. = Modulus of compressibility of the foundation soil in kg/cm2 b = Length of the section in the bending axis in cm. October. E. the foundation may be considered as rigid C3 Determination of Critical Column Spacing C3. In the case of the' foundation I. 196614 Relevant extracts from this paper are given below: .2 ACI Committee.5. R = Radius of the raft in cm C2. 436 Suggested design procedure for combined footings and mats .1 For K > 0. = Modulus of elasticity of concrete in kgf/cm2 1 =Moment of inertia of the raft in cm4 Modulus of compressibility of the soil is the additional property required in this particular case. whereas for the topmost beam 1'" become zero C2 Relative Sti#hess Factor K: C2.1. including the foundation beam of raft. This relation is expressed by the relative stimess factor K given below: (a) For the whole structure (b) For rectangular rafts or beams (c) For circular rafts where El = Flexible rigidity of the structure over the length (a) in kg/cm2 E.
If the analysis of the relative stiffness of the footing yields a value above 0.m) I. the critical spacing i t which the subgrade modulus theory becomes effective has to be determined individually. ft3(m3) Es= Modulus of elasticity of the soil.5.5 . . the design of the footing shall be governed by subgrade modulus theories. = 0 .5 for long footing and 0. an analysis must be made comparing the combined stiffness of the footings.If the average of two adjacent span. Computations indicates that as the relative stiffness K. To determine the approximate rigidity of the structure. The relative stiffness will determine whether the footing should be considered rigid or flexible. the differential settlement decreases rapidly. is greater than 1. the footing shall be designed as a flexible member using the foundation modulus approach as described under section 6. as limited above. superstructure framing members. For general cases falling outside the limitation stated above.ft (metric tons per sq. and shear walls with the stiffness of the soil. kips per sq. increases. The following formulas may be used in this analysis : where E = Modulus of elasticity of the materials used in the structure. ft (m) per An approximate value of ElIC unit length of building can bedetermined by summing the flexural rigidity of the footing (E'L. For K . If the relative stiffness factor is found to be less than 0. respectively. = 0.1.I1 a DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 29 Footings supportingjield structures Ig Continuous strip footings supporting structures which because of their rigidity will not allow the individual columns to settle differentially should be designed as rigid footings with a linear distribution of soil pressure.75/h.the ratio of differential to total settlement is 0.ft (metric tons per sq. Columns Spacing The column spacing on continuous footings is important in determining the variation in soil pressure distribution.4 of the report.35 for a square one. the ratio of differential to total settlement is about 0. For K . the footing can be considered rigid and the variation of soil pressure determined on the basis of simple statistics. If the average of two adjacent spans in a continuous strip having adjacent loads and column spacings that vary by not more than 20 per cent of the greater value or is less than 1. kips per sq. =Moment of inertia of the structure per unit length.) the flexural rigidity of the each framed member (FIB)and the flexural rigidity of any shear walls (F3112) where a and h are the thickness and height of the wall.5. Evaluation of the factor can be made on the basis of the following formulae: ' .75/h. the footing can be considered rigid and the variation of soil pressure determined on the basis of simple statics. This distribution can be determined on the basis of simple statics. ft3 (m3) IF = Moment of inertia of the footing per unit length.m) b =Width of footings.
this can be axpressed as intensity of soil pressure required to create a unit . = KB = Modulus of sub grade reaction X Width of footing . Mathematically.L ~ ) " ~ 4 El K. '= Kips per cu ft (metric tons per cu m) b = Width of footings.6 Modulus of SubGrade Reaction One of the important terms required in analysing foundation on the basis of flexible footings is value of modulus of subgrade reaction also called coefficient of subgrade reaction for the particular soil in the foundation of the buildings. Kips per cu ft (metric tons per cu m) K. ft (m) S = Size or shape factor for a footing on a particular type of soil E. if . As for clay soils. 5. = Modulus of elasticity of concrete. For value between W4 and l semi rigid. where n approaches infinity. S can be assumed as 0.3 Hetenyi's Criteria From theory of beams on elastic foundation. = Coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction.30 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Where K. Hetenyi proposed rigidity criteria on the basis of hLterm which considers width. can Values for Kt.r K.5. L = Total length of foundation member E = Modulus of elasticity of footing material I = Moment of inertia of footing If 1 c W4 footing can be considered as rigid.units of psf. basic value of coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for a square area with width b = 1 ft (0. the shape factor S can be determined from the following formula: When n is the ratio of the longer side to the shorter side of the footing.. length and elastic properties of the media. 3 > I ~ o w l e sfound this criteria of very limited application.. be determined from the results of field tests performed on the subgrade of the proposed structure or can be estimated on the basis of empirical values in "Evaluation of coefficients of Subgrade Reaction" by Terzaghi. As for extremely long footings. and elastic. This term is hL = where (K.3 m). Kips per sq ft (metric tons per sq m) I = Moment of inertia of footings ft4 (m4 For sandy soils the size factor S can be determined from the following formula: with a limiting value of 0. 7 '~ 5.25 for large footings.67. = SR.
300 75 . Sc and Sq are shape factors for particular soil in foot units . where c is cohesion. Theoretically.150 150 . Moreover: Sc = I +  NcxB NcxL General values suggested by Bowles are given below: Soil ~ o o s sand e Medium sand ~ e n s sand e clayey sand (Medium) Silty sand (Medium) Clayey soil : Range of Ks.300 qu 5 4 Ksf 4<qu18Ksf . it can be determined by performing a plate load test and plotting a curve of soil pressure versus deflection.500 150 .6. 5. In actual practice. Kef 30 .100 60 . however. Major problems associated are: (a) Soil is not perfectly elastic and results are effected by the magnitudes of soil pressure and deflection (b) Footing size affects the value (c) Footing shape also affects (d) Depth at which footing is located also affects (e) Soil stratificationand other changes with depth which may not show when testing with a small plate (f) In methods where soil modulus is determined in laboratory.DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 31 3 I deflection. Nc and N q are bearing capacity factors.500 100800 200 . A slightly improved values are also suggested by the equation. site condition can not be exactly duplicated in field laboratory (g) Various authors have suggested different factors to take these problems into account On the other hand. many other factors enter and actual value in field is different from what can be determined by a simple plate load'test.1 Recommended by ~ o w l e s ' ~ Has related value of modulus of subgrade reaction with safe bearing capacity by the relation Ks = 36 qa where qa is the allowable bearing capacity in Kips per sq ft. certain authors have suggested very simple values for modulus of subgrade reaction which can be determined from bearing capacity factors used in Terzaghi bearing capacity equation.
The above values are bared on the assumption that the average loading intensity does not exceed half the ultimate bearing capacity. For dry or moist state For submerged state (1) Loose Medium (2) (3) 1 5 (95) . units. 72) 2 7 to 5. Table I Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K) CohesionlessSoils for Soil Characteristic Relative Density Standard Penetration test value ( N ) Modulus OfSubgrade Reactions (K)in kg/cm3.32 RAFT FOLINDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS 5.1 The modulus of subgrade reaction ( k ) as applicable to the case of load through a plate of size 30 x 30 cm or between 30 cm wide on the soil is given in Table 1 for cohesionless soils and in Table 2 for cohesive soils. (95to 300) (4) 0.7 .8 . 1 5 to 4.9(57) . 5.4 (172to 344) . Figures given in bracket in Tables I and I1 are in Kipdc ft.8 (344to 688) l to 2 2 to4 4 and over * The values apply to a square plate 30 x 30 cm.4to 10.6.2 IS : 2950 P r I Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of RafC Foundation at 2950 1981'  Provision relating to determination of modulus of subgrade reaction are included in Appendix B.7 to 18. . This is reproduced below. 0.9to 2 9 (57to 185) 2 9 to 10.0 (300to 1146) * The above values apply to a square plate 30 X 30 cm or beams 30 cm wide for Table II Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K) Cohesive Soils Soil Characteristic Consistency Unconfined compressive strength. kg/cm2 (2) Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K)in K ~ / C ~ ~ (1) Stiff Very stiff Hard (3) 2 7 (1 . B1 General . (185 to 687) < 10 10 to 30 Dense 30 and over 4. Unless more specific determination of K is done (see B2 and B3) these values may be used for design of rafl foundation in cases where the depth of the soil affected by the width of the footing may be considered isotropic and the extrapolation of plate load test results is valid.
5 B to B) B3.2 In carrying out the test.5 above. NOTE IS:9214 .1979 lays down that Ks can be determined as slope of the secant drawn between the points corresponding to zero settlement and point corresponding to 1. evaluation of Kfrom plate load will be unrealistic and its determination shall be based on laboratory tests (see IS: 2720 (Part XI).1 For stratifed deposits or deposits with lenses of different materials. Appendix A lays down mettrod of determination of modulus of elasticity of soil by field tests or laboratory tests.3 The value of K shall be determined from the following relationship where Es= Modulus of elasticity of soil (see Appendix A) E = Young's modulus of foundation material p = Poisson's ratio of soil ( see Appendix A) and I = Moment of inertia of structure if determined or of the foundation B3. B2.1 9 8 1 ) ~ ~ B3.2 The average value of K shall be based on a number of plate load tests carried out over the area.DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 33 B2 Field Determination In cases where the depth of the soil affected by the width of the footing may be considered as isotropic the value of K may be determined in accordance with IS :9214 .25 mm settlement of a load settlement curve obtained from a plate load test on the soil using a 75 cm dia plate or smaller dia with corrections for size of the plate used. I When the structure is rigid (see Appendix C) the average modulus of sub grade reaction may also be determined asfollows: Ks = Average contact pressure Average settlement of the raft Appendix C lays down the method of determining the rigidity of superstructure and foundation and has +n dealt with in para 5. B3 Laboratory Determination B3.3 above is based on work carried out by ~ e s i c~ o~ . appropriate values of Esand p may be determined in accordance with Appendix A and used in B3. l e shas observed that the 12th root of any value will be close to 1 and equation can be considered to be equivalent to . 84 Calculations B4.1972" and IS: 2720 (Part X1I).4 In the absence of laboratory test data.3 for evaluation of K.1979". the continuing cell pressure may be so selected as to berepresentative of the depth of average stress influence zone (about 0. the number and location of the tests depending upon the extent and importance of the structure. The test shall be carried out with a plate of size not less than 30 cm. ~ w '~ Equation in B3.
Large number of approximations and engineering judgements are involved.       Another method of arriving at the value of modulus of subgrade reactions would be to determine the bearing capacity of soil for the contemplated raft foundation and the settlement for the same raft foundation in accordance with the two codes referred above and utilize the same.. however. However. immediate settlement plus primary consolidation settlement Procedure for estimation of immediate and consolidation settlement differ for different types of soil profile. of a load settlement curve obtained on a soil using 75 cm dia or smaller loading plates with corrections for size of the plate. The value of modulus of subgrade reaction so determined is required to be corrected for (a) when using plates smaller than 75 cm in dia (b) correction for bending of the plate.e. Code of Practice for Cirlculation of SettCements of Foundations Part I Shullow Foundations. ft. nature and location of various soil layers below the foundation. 92141979 Method of Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k value) of Soils in Fiedo Modulus of subgrade reaction is defined as a ratio of load per unit area (applied through a centrally loaded rigid body) of a horizontal surface of a mass of soil to corresponding setdement of the surface. Because of difficulty in sampling of cohesionless soil and consequent inability for determining their compressibility characteristics. i.  5. (c) correction for saturation. In practice.4. Average value of k is to be based on a number of plate load tests carried out over the area. Settlement calculations in the present state of knowledge are considered to be at best estimate of the most probable magnitude of settlement.6. The soil mass below is considered to consist of horizontal soil layers having known properties determined on the basis of base log data from several bores. settlement calculations are based on semi empirical methods utilising results of either static cone penetration tests. 5.6. the number and location depending upon the extent and importance of the structure. it will normally be worked on the basis of ' K values from standard penetration test. Different memods of calculating settlement are applicable for cohesionless and cohesive soils. This value should be more realistic as it is usual in case of all foundations to fix their dimensions in plan for full bearing capacity. These also depend even on the fact whether the cohesive soil layer is preconsolidated or normally loaded clay. Final correction is required to be applied for the size of actual raft being different from plate. standard penetration test or plate load test Plate load tests being getting out of fashion. It is determined as the slope of secant drawn between the point corresponding to zero settlement and the points of 1. no two base log data is similar. Calculations in this code are based on the assumption that the loads transmitted to the foundation are static and vertical. i. soil layers are not horizontal and it is quite difficult to idealise the soil below foundation in the manner contemplated in the code. Two types of failure.3 1.34 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS and suggested that value of Kscan be calculated by the equation Ks= 36 qa where qa is allowable bearing capacity in kips per sq.25 rnm settlement. determination of bearing capacity of soils is not an exact mathematical exercise leading to accurate results. In case of cohesive soils.e. Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Load IS 6403 1981 Code of pmctice for determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundations. settlement is considered to be built up to two components. general sheer failureand local sheer failures have been recognised.. IS 8009 Part I 1978.S. .
6 Summary It would thus be seen that even for the same soil data values of modulus of sub grade reaction determined by methods suggested in the different text books and codes will be different. curve 2 for N value > 50. Peck and Thornburn cannot be considered to have universal application. n ' ~ He correlated the values of np (reciprocal of the modulus of subgrade reaction) with SPT blows which were replotted this correlation in SI units.T. TOapply this factor.P. is a million dollar question.8 times that for a flexible foundation. Alam Singh has suggested use of curves presented by Bjermm and Eggested which are based on a plate size of 0. Correction due to depth of foundation is applied as a depth factor. curve 1 for N < 10 and Terzaghi. Which value to be adopted for the correct design. In this plot curve 1 and 2 represent the extreme boundaries. N = 15 +0. Alam singhZ5 a correction chart for overburden pressure. Average curve is suggested for N values between 10 to 20.DESIGN APPROACH AND CONSIDERATIONS 35 Settlements as calculated are required to be corrected for the effect of depth of the foundation and effect of rigidity of raft. Alam Singh ~ l ~ a determined settlement curves of plate loads tests already reported by Terzaghi. Having determined bearing capacity and settlement modulus of subgrade reaction can be determined by the basic definition. As already discussed in para 5. Peck curve for N values between 30 and 50.5 this itself is full of uncertainties and approximations. He has further suggested that the value so determined should not be more than 3 times the original value of N. Methods have been suggested to take this into account. Alam Singh has also developed also available for the tests. As is apparent there are number of limitations to this method. Original test reported by Terzaghi. it should be further corrected as per relationship. When N is greater than 15. 5. but these methods again are based on number of assumptions and neglecting the effect of loading and unloading cycles which undergo during the construction process. . For rigidity it is assumed that the deflection at the centre of rigid foundation is equal to 0.6.32 m size sq plate. Further settlements of an actual structure would depend upon the time rate of loading. value determined in field is corrected for overburden pressure from these charts. Peck and Thornburn.5 (WT15) This N corr is used in the curve to find out reciprocal of modulus of subgrade reactions. S. These values are for plates and have to be corrected for size of the raft foundation.6. All suggestions are for cohesionless soil. 5. one has to decide whether the foundation is rigid or flexible.5 Recommendation by Alpan and Pmf.
Flexible methods give low thickness and low values of bending moments and accordingly low cost of reinforcements. Such designers are. do not show any distress to start with. Competence of these structural designers varies widely. They will also find that the examples considered in the text books and manuals mostly are very simple and regularshaped uniformly loaded rafts which satisfy number of assumptions made in the text book. Quite often since no straightaway guidance is available in the books or manuals for practical design of raft. Such engineers when faced with problem of undertaking design of raft foundation will pick up a text book or manual on reinforced concrete design and follow the procedure laid down which in most cases would be conventional combined footing and would normally be safe ut expensive. but do not have much of guidance from their seniors.STRUCTURAL DESIGNER^ DILEMMA Structural design of raft foundation is being carried out by structural engineers individually. Structures seldom get loaded to the design loads. very few and seldom undertake design for normal buildings. e . but would be economical. They f&e the dilemma as to which of the methods they should adopt. have some experience of design and would normally try to make a design which is not only safe but should also be economical. They may also have a feeling that conventional methods of raft design are old fashion and may lead to high thickness and high quantity of reinforcement. These designers will study more than one book or manual on concrete and structural design and will normally find that the opinions and methods of design recommended in various text books and manuals differ widely. They have read moderately. they also finally take up one or two text books and work out a design. On one extreme are those who have some knowledge of structural design. however. whereas their problem is much different. or while working in any consultancy organisation which could be in public or private sector. How will these structures behave when subjected to full designed loads including seismic effects can be judged only by number of otherwise standing structures failings in such circumstances. On the other extreme are top class engineers who have wide experience and knowledge of structural designs with ability to analyse the problem. carry out alternative analysis and design a raft foundation which would not only be safe. Majority of the designers have knowledge in between those two extremes. Such designs are seldom satisfactory. though structures designed by them. Quite often analysis is carried out on computer using flexible approach utilising the value of modulus of subgrade reaction suggested by the soil consultant or worked out by them as per method given in any book and simultaneously design the raft for vertical loads neglecting various other factors which affect the design of raft.
keeping in view the various constraints under which a designer has to cany out the design. suggestions have been made for methods to be adopted in Chapter 12 for various situations. . contact pressure and deflection in the rafts already constructed for actual buildings. Studies have. therefore. shear force. These studies are presented in Chapters 7 and 8.STRUCTURAL DESIGNERS'S DILEMMA E $ :: Keeping such designers in view. it was felt that enough material should be made available to them to allow them to appreciate the effect on raft foundation of variation in the values of the various parameters adopted by them in design and also the effect of neglecting base moments of the column and horizontal loads. been carried out on the effect of various parameters on the values of bending moments. Finally.
is another vital parameter which comes into play in any analysis.spring of known rigidity most important soil property is modulus of subgrade reaction. and pattern of pressure distribution under the raft. been carried out to consider on the design of raft foundation the effect of neglecting some of these aspects and making assumptions which in fact are not true. thickness of the slabs. raft is analysed as flexible raft selecting one particular value of modulus of subgrade reaction. therefore. The rigidity of raft which is determined by the size of the raft and effect of superstructure on the same. As an improvement where computer facilities and greater expertise are available. The effect of variation in values of both these parameters on the value of bending moments and shear forces. it is soil properties which matter to a large extent. columns have base moments which are resisted by the junction of the raft and the columns. one assumed size of the raft and vertical loads alone.e. Values of bending moments thus obtained are used. 7. i. but in commonly adopted analysis where soilraft interaction is idealised as a.. In exact analysis all soil properties matter. has been studied in this study. In actual buildings. Efforts have been . Studies have. different values of modulus of subgrade reaction even for the same soil. even after addition of permissible reinforcement. Different designers may select different preliminary sizes. In both these designs unless the preliminary sizes selected are found to be structurally unsafe in resisting moments and shears. if it is uniformly thick raft or beam size and slab thickness in case it is beam and slab system on the basis of shear and analyse the raft for vertical loads alone. the design is completed and finalised. utilising computer. As already pointed out in previous chapters the real position is not so simple. one gets on an analysis.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS ON DESIGN OF RAFT The usual practice of design being followed is to work out preliminary sizes of the raft. These studies have been carried out in four parts. Buildings subjected to earthquake forces have not only increased column base moments but also undergo cyclic effect in which vertical loads in different groups of columns decrease and increase.1 Study 1 In sophisticated flexible analysis.
in numerical values and show the large variation which. While the beam sizes are considered to remain the same. it may generally be possible to coincide CG of raft and load. however. has been considered in this study. machineroom and water tank.5 for Examples l . the loading is not. 7. Since in conventional design. Ground floor has got part parking. Example 1 relates to the side block. This was considered to vary from 1 M to 1. Longitudinal beams are 85 cm x 110 cm.6 above. raft foundations for actual buildings have been considered in this study. The raft foundation consists of a slab having uniform thickness. raft dimensions have been so adjusted that the centre of gravity of vertical loads and centre of gravity of raft area coincide.for the same structure.4 and 7. the slab thickness is taken to vary from 50 cm to. Contribution made by super structure in the rigidity of raft has been neglected. one for each side block and other for central core.1. TOmake the study realistic. not possible to have simultaneously a symmetrical shape in plan also. In Example 3 (Fig.1) is one metre. 7. Soil investigations to determine the safe bearing capacity of soil for purposes of design were done through specialised consultants and their reports obtained. 7.while dealing with examples on raft analysis. The effect of rigidity of the super structure has not been taken into account.I Examples Selected Most of the textbooks on structural engineering and reinforced concrete design. In this study. In two out of these three examples. 7. The side block is not symmetrical about any axis.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS 39 made to present results. calculated by variousmethods described in 5. Loading on these blocks are as per actual loads obtained during design process.1. Even when the shape may be symmetrical. Its front block isrectangular in shape but has unsymmetrical loading. these consultants were not requested to intimate value of modulus of subgrade reactions and they did not do so.2) actual thickness provided is 1. and 3.3 Soil Investigation . 7. The loading can. therefore. it was considered that this thickness could vary from 80 cm to 1. One eightstoreyed block of residential flats consisting of four flats on each floor with a central core having staircase. For Example 2 (Fig.2 m. But in practice this never happens. 7. location of water table and values of modulus of subgrade reaction calculated are indicated in Figs. . only vertical loads have been considered. properties like modulus of subgrade reaction are not utilised. While carrying out this study. The raft consists of beams in both direction and a slab monolithic with the b%ams.1.2 Rafr Size The raft thckness actually provided for Example 1 (Fig. In practical examples.4 M .3) the slab thickness is 50 cm and the transverse beams are 80 cm x 150 cm (including slab). The central core is symmetrical in shape about one axis. lift and other service areas. All these variations are considered in steps of 10 cm each.90 cm . one can get . 7. having a particular loading pattern founded on the same soil when different sizes of raft or values of modulus of sub grade reacrion determined by various methods available in literature are adopted. The central core is separate from other blocks. generally consider a simple symmetrical shape with more or less symmetricaVunifom loading. It is. Details of soil investigationsindicating soil strata at various depths. The third example considered is the front block of another sixstoreyed institutional building. therefore. which has already been constructed few years ago. and Example 2 to central core. be considered to be symmetrical and it is this aspect which is very important. The central core goes beyond eight storeys to provide staircase mumty.2 m. which consists of a front block and rear block separated by expansion joints. 2 . Values of modulus of sub grade reaction were. 'N' values from standard penetration tests.
. 7 1 .RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS T 16985 t RAFT SLAB THICKNESS4OOoMM Fig.2 . 1 0 6 6 0 t 2 2 8 0 t6090 ~ 22904 + l 5 8 O b 7500 tlW+ 06 160 ~t Fig.7.  .
It is usual practice to assume one value of K.65203 K N / ~ ~ . For the purpose of study. The minimum being 70 and maximum being 476. For soil investigation in case of Example 3. 4 values.y entire raft.1 8 to 4 m. were carried out. Ifmil values under the raft changes from one bore hole to other. water table in different bore holes is varying between 3. Any designer could have adopted any of the 20 values in Fig.6. 7. Values of K.5 m. It would be seen that there is large variation in the values of K.3 top 30 cm or so had brick bats mixed with silty clay. Two values selected are 117. another one was very near to is raft and 3rd one was under the rear block.varies from bore hole to bore hole and from one method to another method. three standard penetration tests and four dynamic cone penetration tests extending upto a depth of 10 m.24506.determined by various methods and for various bore holes. below existing groupd level.90.5 would show that value of K. The depth of the water table varied form 1.4 1 SRI ~ K N U N 1767 TKN ~9 1 g T h i ckness PLAN OF R A F T AT FRONT BLOCK <ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MM) Fig. below ground level. or 18402 and I4956 ICbI/m3 .in Kipp per ft' units have been calculated by the four methods given in para 5. i. but this is not the reality .. 'N' value are varying from 9 to 50.5 to 1.61108. 70. have been adopted for studying the effect of variation in value of modulus of subgrade reaction. These values in metric units would be 10996. four standard penetration tests have been carried out extending to a depth of 9 m. Soil consultant had recommended a safe bearing capacity of 150 ICbI/m2 at a depth of 2. Four dynamic cone penetra\tion tests were also carried out on an interval of 30 cm each with depths extending upto 14 m. Out of three bor holes one bore hole was located within the raft dimensions of front block. 7.84 m.3 In soil investigations for Examples 1 and 2. Fig. 156. In bore hole No.42. 389 and 415 kipps per ft. To take into account the variation of K. under the same raft from one portion i . for soil parameters would also change.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS 41 BEAM S I Z E S B1=650X1500mm B2=600X1500mm B3=800X 1 1 00mm COLUMN S I Z E =400X800mm f5 I i ~ n JKN n 1N  I 6213 4m.14 Kip ft.4. Average value for the four bore holes by each methods are also indicated.e. 7.
in the 3 portion which had been demarcated on a rational basis.07 .54 ALPAN'S CURVE In K c f Average Value o f N Fig. .65.5 kg/crn2 w s suggested by soil consultants for this raft.118.372. 58460 and 17920.1.03 295 254 344 476 25.21 156 237. 131. 7.19 Kip/c ft. the raft was considered to have different values of K.42 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS EXAMPLE 1 AND 2 Average Ks By I S CODE IN K c f K s By BOVLES M I a K c f D K s BY BOVLES M 11 tn K c f D 100 229 268 393 22.4 Lwd Considered in Study In accordance with the common practice.33. These values are two combinations of 224.in metric units these values would be 34976. 20615. A kafe bearing capacity of 1.71 70 202 285 348 20.0 476 26.4 to anofher. 42466.2 160 264 347.18567 in K N / ~ ~ .14 and 114. only vertical load as being transferred to raft from columns.23. respectively.25 311 389 23. neglecting base moment for columns are considered.270. a 7.
32 106.1 144. such finite elements are triangular.74 11.45 113.89 274. three each for displacement and rotation.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS EXAMPLE 3 SILTY W D SMDY SOU average KsBy BOWLES IN I in K c f MD KS BY BOWLES MD I1 in K c f 118.5 Analysis The analysis has been camed out on an electronic computer utilising SAP 1Vcomputer programme based on finite element methodj~inite element method of structural analysis is based upon the general principle of going from part to whole.1.47 327.73 Ks By I S CODE I N K c f Ks By ALPAN'S CURVE m Kcf 127 ACRAGE VALUE OF N 11. columns and slabs for purpose of analysis and design.57 115.74 117. 7. Raft is taken as a thin plate on elastic foundation .27 270. For a twodimensional continuum considered for raft analysis.4 Fig.The soil is idealised as a spring . Each of the node has six degrees of freedom.33 312.14 435. The elastic continuum whole forming the structure is discretised with a number of finite elements just as the way a building is discretised as elementary beams.19 115.14 274.5 7.8 9 14.17 90.19 372. group of triangles or quadrilaterals.
7 6 indicates the finite elements in which raft of Fig. physically. Ratio of maximum and minimum values of M.44 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS under each node on the concept of Winkler's model. . Another set of ratios has been worked out for bending moments and deflection selecting the maximum and minimum values for the same element irrespective of the thickness or modulus of subgrade reaction.deflection in the.6 . under such condition the soil will no longer act as support. a constant thickness of 1 for M and varying values of modulus of subgrade reaction. But in the method adopted for analysis the spring which is representing the soil continuum as a support takes tension. Six elements in this figure have been selected and used for comparison of values of bending moments in X and Y directions and.2indicates similar values for a constant value of K. (ALL DIMENSIONS ARE I N MM> Fig. Maximum value among all the elemental ratios have been indicated at the bottom of the same Table. . Fig. However. 71 has been divided. and M y in X and Y directions for particular elements have been worked out. Maximum values of these ratios have been shown for each element in the last column of Table 7. Suchan analysis suffers from the disadvantage that when the raft gets separated from the soil supporting it. 7.1.2 direction. Table 7. Spring constant is a function of soil subgrade modulus and the area under the node. it has been felt that this limitation is not of much significance because such tension would be exceptional. These ratios vary considerably. Comparative values for Example 1 are indicated in Table 7.taken as 70 KipsJc ft (10996KN/m3) and varying values of thickness from 80 to 120 cm. This ratio has also been worked out for deflection and indicated at the bottom of the same Table.2 andtheir maximum have been indicated at its bottom.
8 . 7. 10720 1 <ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MH) Fig. 7.7 <ALL DIMENSIONS ARE I N MM) Fig.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS .
8.6 130. . in KNdm BM.65203 & 11.5 58.0 115.3 and 7.02. 4 6 MU Mfl 1.0 .5 106.3 98.6 Discussions o Results f Table 7.5 130.03.43 7.94 .32. 7.02.37 29 10996 24506 61 108 65203 10996 24506 61108 65203 .7. Fig.64 5.01.62 1.11.43 times more depending upon the value of modulus of subgrade reaction selected in the analysis.41 1.31 28 80. K.97  6 Maximum Ratio in any Element . A higher value of modulus of subgrade reaction means lesser values of deflection directly proportional to its value.08 .36. Value In Average '6' in K N / ~ ~ mm BM.95 135.0 30.10 . 7.9 62.0 Metre Plate Element No.86 .1 indicates that for 1 M thickness of raft in example 1.1.2 95. and Node No.9 67. Table 7.7 94.9 59.06 .5 and 7. in KNdm Ratio of MadMin .RAFT FOUNDAHONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS EXAMPLEI Table 7.5 61.13 2. Mm M. I I Fig.07. Deflection value could increase upto 6.6 indicate similar information for Example 3.33. Tables 7.7 M.22 6.05 8. O 154.81.16.80 .18. 7. Bending moment in Y direction could be 7.97 times more.66 times.5 65.7 97.28 . bending moment in X direction could be as much as 8.05.1 Uniform Average Thickness 1.4 indicate similar information for Example 2.
20 .90 1.10.0 101O . O O 1.7 129.15.10 1.10.10. ( BM.2 Uniform Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 10996 K N / ~ ~ Plate Element No.7 84.53 .8 105.10.52 . 8.31 28 MU M~? 6 1.12.84 .7 143.07 .5 79.5 67.33.31 .21 time depending upon the thickness of the raft.80 0.5 53.90 1 .32.25. The value of deflection does not change much and becomes only a maximum of 1. 1.4 61.oO 1.17.63 .6 67.85 .3 70. .08 .10.33 6. My" 6 2.12 11.10.0 140.57 .52 1.35 .20 6.11. This values for bending moment in Y direction is 3.19 Maximum Ratio in any Element Mu Mv 6 2.90 1.80 M.04 1.OO 1.5 143. in KNdm I I Ratio o f Max.2 135.87 Table 7.08 . Thickness in A veroge '6' tnetre in m m and Node No.9 155.24.9 122.10.4 64.34 1.79 10./Min 18.87 19.11.2 174.60 30.11.16.5 67.80 0.5 44.36.94 .6 69. in KNdm I BM./Min.1 1.20 0.55 1.0 86. 19 18 0.16 3.2 145.86 5.5 97.3 53.02 1.15.10.65 6.OO 1.20 0.9 109.10 1.07 6.059 11.10.12 1.70 .26.9 100.08 .80 0.16.0 154.0 92.80 0. 1 14.16 times and can even change siin depending upon the thickness of raft selected by the designer.27 10.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS Table 7. the bending moment in X direction could be as much as 2.33 06.5 53. I Over All Max.27 4.0 66.90 1 .10.2 shows that for a constant value of modulus of subgrade reaction taken as 70 Kipslc ft (10996 K m 3 ) .20 0.53 1.98 80.5 115.53.21 49.66 .25.14 2.70 .96 .9 M.10 1 .71 1.10 1.2 67.7 69.6 165. . My.1 75.53 .18 1.37 29 .14 2.81.16 1.20 19 MU My? 6 2.047 1.6 130.9 130.
34 1. 4 6 Mu 4 6 M.2 60.79 I .82 1.6 53.33 1.6 397.10 59.43 02.23 1. 4 6 Mu 1 M .4. 3.7. it would be apparent that (a).12 1.56 2.18. Y direction and deflection are 1.46 6.8 220.8 157.9 119.6 402.8 4 17.09 0.6 233.0 106.4 165.8 53.49 05.58 1. The variation in bending moments in X direction is more for Example 1 as compared to Example 2.5 343.53 1.7 97.86 4. S Mu Maximum Ratio in any Element M.1 321.2 140.149.9 73.20 Metre Plate Element No.6.9 3 5.46 and for deflection is 6.38 28 36.5 96.05 1.93 1.5 31.72 2.8 240.27 1.46 6.97 144.28 6. (b) The variation in value of bending moment in Y direction for Example 2 is lower as compared to values of variation in this direction for Example 1. 1.01 and 7.3 74.35.39.2. 10.27 18 34.6 130.55 11.44 5.68 9.49 1.1 100.0 Mn '7 4 Mw 1.67 2.28. bending moment in Y direction and deflection are 2.83 3.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS EXAMPLE I1 Table 7 3 Uniform Average Thickness 1. This value for bending moment in Y direction is 7.46 9.52 4.83 1.5 280. The overall variation values for this raft of bending moment in X direction.60 02.55 6.6 137.40 29 10996 24506 61108 65203 10996 24506 61 108 65203 10996 24506 61 108 65203 10996 24506 61 108 65203 10996 24506 61 108 65203 10996 24506 61 108 65203 8.38 7.24 15 21.4 262.37.32 1. For the fixed value of modulus of subgrade reaction and varying values of thickness these ratios in X direction. respectively.24.93 6 M.8 326.47 7.6 130.56 6.6 461.93.7 128.1 93. Ks Value i n Average '6' in mm K N / ~ ~ BM. .0 48.22.7 1 3.23.3 44.41.1 220. and Node No.38 1.5888.4 89. On comparison of values' for Examples 1 and 2.3 64.0 99.91 1.7 20.8 93.26.8 300.67 7.8 152. respectively.99 4.38 1.7 113. 10.5 344.4 148.67.105.76 4.6 291.3 shows that the variation of bending moment in X direction for the same thickness of raft and varying modulus of subgrade reactionis 1.87 1.~n 6 Table 7.8 96. i n KNdm BMvv in KNdm Ratio of Mar/Min.6 109.
40 1.027 1.I : STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VPiRlOUS PARAMETERS 49 Table 7.62 7.7 135.37.1 206.35 36.0 494.1 442.4. MU My).40 8.94 8.72 6. O O 1./Min.1 136.1 96. 6.40 1 29 1.03 1.4 372.6 199.55 6.173 1.20 1.35.23.82 11. O O 1.7 208.8 4 1.30 1.30 1.7.3 74.10 1.6 139.1 60.0 139.3 180.10 1.69 11.01 9.79 9.18.10 1.24 10.10 1.74 9.77 9. Higher the value of modulus of subgrade reaction selected lower are the values of deflection and higher the values of bending moments.20 1.2' 305. in KNmh EM.76 7.6 359.4 148.98 9.588 2.38 28 MU M~~ 6 1.3 125./Min 3.9 76.20 1.9 3 ! i 5.9 138.69 6.80 136. O O 1.70 7.39.8 344. in KN& Ratio of Max.588 2.08 4.6.116 1.95 7.009 1.30 1.72 8.37 6.13 11.40 ~ M* My?.97 34.9 60.9 158.28.0 152.2 71.6 146.1 59.8 333. O O 1.5 130.1 138.4 442.664 1.15 ' P ~ ~ Mu M~~ 6 1.1 3 17.10 1.7 1 6. whereas it is more or less directly proportional to the value of modulus of subgrade reaction.OO 1.3 485.105 1.0 343.4 397.96 17.1 314.8 327.7 308.92 10.6 280.01 6.10 1.149 1.149 1.88 7.26 (c) Deflection of raft is more or less independent of the thickness of the raft and varies only very slightly.41.66 7.75 7.122 1. Max. Thickness in Average '6' Metre in m m and No& No.40 .4 356.8 351.4 351.1 73.62 3.39 21.10.77 8.5 347.5 141.317 1.20 10.30 1.029 1.30 1.6 479.5 421.49 1 1.83 8.024 2.01 7.73 9.2 124.24 15 1.20 1.588 1.5 6 1.08 1.20 1.40 1.86 9.5 144.206 1.027 5. EM.20 1.3 147.73 3.8 140.2 140.40 1.04 MU 4 6 1.22.26 Mu Maximum Ratio in any Element M)? 6 1.27 18 Mu M~~ 6 1.4 461.077 1.8 68. O O 1.24 :0.76 9.74 9.4 Uniform Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 10996 K N I ~ ~ Plate Element No.5 58.3 60.105 2.47 1.6 244.30 1.8 127. 6 1. .13 1.9 168.
11.56 0.4.32 BM. these ratios are 4.58460 KN/m3 SetI1For Combination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .71 and 3.14.48 3.2 42.5 80.0 20.39.4 8.56 42 11. This symmetry results in lower variation in the value of bending moment in X direction.44.0 16.18 0. therefore.0 .0 216.32.20 10 SET. but this will not hold good as soon as there is deviation from symmetry and the values may go several times more.20615.7 4.71 10. respectively.0 18.0 269.0 Maximum Ratio in any Element Note: SetI .9 .12.5 1 0.40 2. SETI SETI1 18402 14156 6.6relating to Example 3 which is raft with beam and slab construction indicate that bending moment in X direction for the same thickness of raft.34976.I SETI1 18402 14156 6 SETI SETI1 18402 14156 Mn M~ 6 Mu My. Value in in mm K N / ~ ~ 18402 14156 0.12. but varying values of modulus of subgrade reaction can be as much as 4.22731.6.11.0 39.4 68.0 13.21. For the same value of modulus of subgrade reaction and varying thickness values.0 52.65 0.v 4. Average '6' K.2 176.46 09.11.50 Metre Plate Element No.8 11.70 .67 1.28 0.8 29.34 01.09.52 0.57.For Combination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . and Node No. 31.10 26 34.~/~ 198.45 0.7.32 0. 18567 KN/m3 Observation (a) above is justified because Example 1 is unsymmetrical in plan in respect of both axis as compared to Example 2 which is symmetrical abput Y axis.35.41.55 and 8. respectively.6 times. Y direction bending moments and deflection.40 28 29.5 and 7.43 31 47.0 251.16 03.5 Uniform Average Thickness 0.61.60 4.10 . for direction bending moments. Values of these ratios for overallrariation are 20.12 .6 .6 188. in KN.71.31.85 .38 1 Ratio of MdMin.08.52 0. The corresponding value in Ydirection and deflection are 4.60 04. respectively.17 and 16.9 187.0 196.70 0.30.50 1.04. apparent that while the thickness and the value of modulus of subgrade reaction selected for a particular raft which is symmetrical in plan and symmetridal in loading may not be of much consequence.48.15 .0 .11.7 1 2. in KNm/m 31.0 248.0 4 SET1 SET11 18402 14156 4 6 M. 12. M.0 SETI SETI1 18. .42 4.63 01.67 3.9 52.9 50. It is. .85 . Tables 7.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS Table 7.42466.3 1.0 60.5 15.0.0 BM.
60 0.30.3 547.0 36.0 .70 0.80 0. in KNmh Rafio of Max.61 20.0 .85 1 1 .4 104.21 08. Thickness in Average '6' in mm Metre and Node NO.07 8.70 0.39. Mu My! O v e r All MaxJMin 0.21.52 .6 30.17 14.0.02 .6 .0 .60 0.32 2. In the study under consideration. .This indicates that variation in values of bending moment would be more in case of rafts with beam and slab construction as compared to raft of uniform thickness.10.43 .6 562.56 11.01 6' 2.O 42.1.00 12.1 451.34 ..7 69.80 0.07.0.40 28 Table 7.10.90 0.7 464.55 8.3 137.94 1.3 .78  34. Maximum Ratio in any Element My? 6 3.5 6 3.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS 51 I i I t 31.2 2 16.1 28.5 436.20 M.20.60 0.90 0.45 29.21.3 198.0 347.70 .50 0.18 3.64 16.90 04.28 3.50 0.4 33.6 with those given in Tables 7.33 08.0.15.73 09.70 0.56 42 .2.0 24.5 and 7.55 1.84 .50 0.48.7 Conclusions The study shows that values of bending moments in a raft may vary several times depending upon the raft size selected For the design and the soil properties under the raft.18 6.28 .3 71. the values .1.30 31.2.35.4 137.67 02.3 .63  Mxr M\. 7.32.08.. This variation increases further as the deviation from the symmetry of the shape or loading of the raft increases.0 196.80 0.28.45 A comparison of values in Tables 7.41.50 0.77 3.0 .60 0.6 1 20.5 13.44.2.09 .0 316.2 85.00 08.1.32 .61 6.24 09.10  MAT MY.44 25.90 0.2 1 03.90 0.08.70 0.9 173.78 .4 will show that ratio of bending moment in X and Y directions for raft in Example 3 is higher as compared to raft in Example 2.0 22.4 570. 7. in KNmh BM.73 12.3.0 16. 12.18402 K N I ~ ~ P!ate Elenent No.32 5.70 0.6 52.33 10.08.14 .09 .90 0.17 08.61 2.0 101.11.1 657.33.1 205.9 39.9 35.6 662.15.78 ' I 47.80 3. My? 10 6 2.0 331./Min. Comparison is not made with Example 1 which is very unsymmetrical in plans.0 50.' 6 2.43 31 0.50 0. BM.80 0.82 M.0.9 .15 .5 98.27 07.57.0 .60 0.23 03.77 10.80 0.2 643.78 02.89 0.6 Uniform Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .30.1.38 26 MLV Mu 6 2.0 21 .19 09.46 3.32 .39.
.2 Study 2 Effect of Horizontal Loads Seismic loads are basically inertia loads which can act on the building in any direction. For more accurate analysis.case No. The output obtained from the TAB analysis was used as an input for the analysis of raft foundation for both the examples. For the purpose of analysis and design these are assumed to be acting in X and Y directions. 7. solved on an electronic computer using vertical loads alone. KN/m3 has been assumed. . load case 1 vertical loads only. i. case No. therefore. 6 vertical loads + base moments + seismic force in y direction. the effect of horizontal loads has accordingly been restricted to seismic coefficient method. 1988. It is felt that considerationof these values would increase the variation further. case No. with a tentative raft size and value of subgrade modulus determined in a routine manner in itself is. Column 8 indicates minimum and maximum ratio these values have with reference to value when vertical loads only are acting.5 vertical load + base moments + seismic force in +y direction. Adoption of an accurate method of analysis like finite element method. x direction.7.1 Example Selected Examples 1 relates to the side block. There are 6 loads cases which have been analysed. The superstructure for both these examples was analysed on three dimensional analysis for buildings programme utilising earthquake force on seismic coefficient method with earthquake acting in +x direction. case No. indicate the number of times each of these value can vary if horizontal loads are acting. In this study. For the purpose of comparison 6 plate elements as originally selected for this example in Study 1 have been considered. Examples 1 and 2 in Study 1 were selected to study the effect on raft moments where horizontal load are also acting. it is common practice to treat them as static horizontal loads determined by seismic coefficient method. settlements. It is expected that the effect would not be much different in case any of the other methods was used. thus.4 :vertical load + base moments + seismic forces 'x' direction. Though these are basically dynamic loads. For the purpose of analysis a thickness of 1 metre for the raft slab and value of soil modulus Ks = 10776. The results of the above study were presented by the author in a 'Seminar on Concrete in Foundation Systems' organised by the Indian Concrete Institute at Madras on December 2930.2. The superstructurein both these examples consist of frames in both the directions.52 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS could be as much as 20 times. The range over which each of these three values vary from one load case to another are indicated in column 7. Further details and the results achieved are discussed below: 7. the response spectrum method or detailed dynamic analysis using design accellerograrn as input is required to be canied out.e. The effect of horizontal loads on the building structure is to alter the moments at the column bases and also to increase the vertical load in some columns and decrease it in the others. +y and y directions. In these examples effect of base moment of columns due to vertical or horizontal loads or variation in wind ward and leeward column loads due to horizontal forces has not beenconsidered. It is usual to adopt seismic coefficientmethod for buildings upto 12 to 13storeyed height. Raft designed in such a manner may not be able to resist the forces properly and finally lead to failure.2 vertical + column base moments. These ratios. bending moments in x direction. bending moments in y direction have been tabulated in Table 7.3 vertical loads + base moments + seismic force in + 'x' direction. case No. not enough in determining realistically the values of bending moment and deflection for a particular raft. Comparative values of Delta.
26.80 + 18.11.33 9.06 + 9.0 117.7 170. Ratio (W.6 143.5 49.1 138.8.21 tiAvG BM.C.2 14.4 . 9.58 .03 .5 + 163.32 67.4 94.36.095 + 47.83 + 1.9 KNdm 96.09.15.7 213.70 .) in these Tables ~.75 BM.7 172. Thickness selected is that as actually provided.7 9. 1.12.0 204.2 11.1 86.112 + 2.8 132.C) (S.3 0.0 67.18 ..6 56. tiAvG 11. i.26 BM. BM.78 0. .7 83.0 181..5 + 1.3 1 tiAvG BM.85 11.25.5 103.97 9.0 + 238.2 84.8 135.7 10.89 + 1.32 .0 + 10.62 .5 16.6 101.55+11. Central core the values are represented in Table 7.3 115.11.39 .6.16 .25.3 41.9 248.7. Max.18 + 1.10.29 16.7. 12.5 19.3 30.7 163.92 .9 11'3.0 132.87 1.15 .2 Table 7.92 .10.11 .5 210.1 08 + 0.13.9 Range of Variation Min.6 157.82 .0 + 227.83 .016 + 1. i.9.79 .69 .33 (S.83 + 83.0 + 220.55 .30.3 132.32 1.8 .18.18.92 .20 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 .26 . & Node No.35 . in KNdm 83.9 121.4 50.4 130.4 88.15.1 135.32 + 2.8 135.46 + 2.33.8 56.7 . (S.05 .5 238.9 1.98 + 1.05 BM.7 28.10.52 + 1 1.e.t i ' BM.. 14.80 16.5 137.C) 1.3 .t i BM.7 41.74 19.76 12.28 0.7 Load Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average %'inmm .2 130.0 m with soil modulus = 10776 K N I ~Mark (S.1 1 + 20.05 1.10.7 36.42 .10.3 (S.5 + 248.96 0.8 188. + 121.C) 5.55 1.048 1.0 136. Max.8 + 3.8. 3 1..11.75 BM.10.3 10. BM.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS 53 g P Plate Element No.2 + 57.32 + 2.68 .58 132.20.2 10.R.11.87 + 1.92 23.10. 19 19.0 135. BMvv Similar study is done for Example 2.3 79. mean sign change.92 + 1.67 0.2 227.45 + 1.143 L 18 18.0 106.4 1.17.7 7.2 61.26.4 3.11.64 0.52 .81.0 28 30.32 .7 149.1? .10.26 86.e.5 129.42 1.T CaseI) Min.5 229.1 9 13..C) 0.16.8. BM.2 57.O 23.82 .5 + 96.10.19 .90 29 80.15.03 79.37 . ~AVG + 15.08 .15. BM.10.23.1 138.32.6 157.0 + 204.79 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 9.6 42.24.1 71.8 128.1 84.5 + 181. in BM.1 174.7 65.24.7 220.
.Vertical Loads + Column Base Moments Case 3 .19 .230.299.107.3.6 .301.Vertical Loads + Column Base Moments + Seismic Force(+ y Direction) Case 6 .8 + .71 BM.63.17 .93.7 + .16 . T Casel) Min.0 6AvG BM.11 1.5 .101.7.27 222.9.7 .16 .3 80.47 Case 1 .00 .79j1.9.80 + 1.11.6 + .4 .75j1.4 .76.10.7.59.72 + 1.188.6.71 + .8 .8 316.00 0..40 +.6.7 .298.48. Mar 0.0 .95 .8 .9 .84 .03 91.6 .78 .45 BM .5 .3 .52 .56 + 9.130.71 .3 .10.222.07 + .9 + 266. Max.234.83 + 1.48.7 .07 .I 1 0.10.7+150. Range of Variation Min.90.72.2 .21 8.56 .44 .112.Vertical Loads + Column BaSe Moments + Seismic Force(.05 BM.54.13 .5 + .10.4 .8.6 3.75.98 .3 .3 1 hAVG BM.59.40 .6 .4.34 .8 0.5.89 1.6.8 .0 0.98.9 5.266.94.92. KN&~ .7 .34 0. BMv.73 + 1.0 .9.3 .9 .387.31+7.3 1 .5 .54 Table 7.307.Vertical Loads + Column Base Moments + Seismic Force(x Direction) Case 5 .1 .8 .153.3 .8 .119.40.67 + 1.104.2 6AvG BM.101.201.5 . in KNm/m .7 0.85j1.141.77.9.52 + 1.40.21 .7 .79.6.9 . BM.153.7 + .256.7 .54.26 .9.88 + 1.48.303.70 .61 .284.4 .123.6.8 .in I and Node No.123. .169. .9 .130.1 201.71 Ratio (W.151.5 .89 .00 .8 + 68.68.60.8 150.24 .114.67.5 .10.13 8.Vertical Loads + Column Base Moments + Seismic Force(+ x Direction) Case 4 .Vertical Loads Only Case 2 .y Direction) .5 . BM.95 + 1.49.58.10.9 387. BM. BM.188.285.88 .31 I .2 .2 .76.9.7.53 0.259.7.6 .7.11.18 0.9 .4 0.71 .90 + 1. &AvG .0 .1 1 .104.I .37.8 0.7.4 0.9 287.86 + 1.153.84 + 1.71 + 1. .96.1 .28  . 7.44 .31 .4 .7 .78 + 1.3 + .50 .7 .6.87 63.23 .9 .376.5 6AvG .7 &AvG 5.5.107.10.09 .40 .7.296.13 .3 91.6 311.R. . BM.70 0.302.9+376.45.9 .7 .q28 .292. .8 Load Case Average '6' in mm .9 + .77 0.5 .67 + 1.7 .9 .43 0.9 .9.0 .23 BM.81 + 1.21 8. .101.53 .6.9.5 .100.10.76 .9 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS BM .37.259.8.90.23 .76 3.67. .8 .112.230.6.6.6 0.19  .6 0.1 .7 .
STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS
55
7.2.2 Discussion of Results Table 7.7 shows that there is large variation in the bending moments in X and Ydirections both, when effect of horizontal loads.is considered. The values vary over a range which lies on both sides of the value of the vertical load alone. In case of plate element No. 18 B.M in direction for vertical loads alone is 79.0 KNmIm. For different load case, this value increases in a range of 79.0 to 227.1 K N d m The minimum increased values have a ratio of 1.32 and maximum of 2.78 . Similar values for plate element No. 28 are 0.98 to 1.64 for BM, and 0.87 to 1.32 for BM,,. Table 7.8 indicates variation but in this case the increase is comparatively low as compared to Example 1. This is on the expected lines as the raft for the central core is symmetrical about one axis and lesser variation is expected.
.
f
1
i t
'1
;
7.2.3 Conclusion
I
The study shows that values of bending moments in a raft of particular thckness and for the same value of so11modulus will vary considerably when the effect of horizontal loads on the superstructure as transmitted to the foundation is considered. The increase could be several times. The usual practice of assuming that 25 to 50% increase can be permitted when seismic force are considered is not sufficient to cover these excessive values and the structural designs, if carried out neglecting the effect of horizontal loads may not be safe. Similar results are expected if raft of the other thickness and soil modulus are considered
z3;
Study 3: Comparison with Conventional Rigid Methods
7.3.1 Details of Conventional Method: Combined Footing Approach In the conventional rigid combined footing approach (explained in detail by TENG'), the raft is analysed using simple statics without any consideration of the elastic properties of the raft and the soil. Here the raft is analy sed as a large beam member independently in both the directions. The row of column loads perpendicular to the length of the beam are coupled together in single column load. Then for these column loads acting on the beam, the upward soil pressure is calculated and the moments and the shears at any section is determined by simple statics. Hence, the moment per unit width of the raft is determined by dividing the moment values by corresponding width of the section. In the situation when the width of the raft is changing both the values, i.e., corresponding to lesser width and the bigger width are determined and the section designed to allow for this sudden change which in fact means concentration of stresses at this junction. Then the same analysis is repeated for the other direction. ( ' Y direction) considering raft as a whole. These in general are the lower bound values. The above analysis gives the total bending moments and shears across the whole raft. But the distribution of this moment and shear along this section, i.e., the width, is a problem of highly indeterminate nature and the average moment obtained above may not exactly indicate the sign and the magnitude of the bending moment at a particular location. In order to obtain some idea as to the upper bound values the raft is divided into strips bounded on the centre line of the column bays in each direction. Each of these strips is then analysed as independent combined footing by simple statics. Using the column loads on each strip the soil pressure under each strip is determined without reference to the planar distribution determined for the raft as a whole. The eccentricity of the load and the pressure distribution below the raft which is considered to be linearly varying are taken into account in this analysis. This method undoubtedly gives very high stresses because it ignores the two way action of the raft and transfer of stresses from one strip to another strip. Therefore, certain arbitrary reduction in values (30% in this case) is made.
STRIP 1 ,2690
!
I
STRIP 2 4130
STRIP 3 3100
,
I
STRIP 4 3660
I
STRlP 5 1749
STRlP 6 STRlP 7 1674 ! 935
600tl 3000
 1
350x350
RAFT S L A B T H I C K N E S S 1 0 0 0 MM
o m v,
STRIPS
@+@ @+(@ @
EXAMPLE 1
COMBINED COMBINED
5
(ALL DIMENSIONS ARE I N MM)
Fig. 7.9
O
0 COMBINED
E
D
5 v,
V)
r
STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS
EXAMPLE 2
'
STIP.5
'
STRIP G'STRP.7 ' S T R P . ~ STRP.9
I
( AL.L
DIMENSIONS ARE
Fig. 7.10
7.3.2 Examples Selected
The raft in Examples 1 and 2 has been divided into strips, and this division is indicated in Figs. 7.9 and 7.10. While examining these strips which are made on the centre line of column bays, it would be seen that there are some strips which have columns only at one end of the strip or there is a big cantilever beyond a particular column. Here a judicious examination is required to be carried out by the designer to see the likelihood of particular strip acting individually or in combination with the adjoining strip. Keeping in view the location of columns in Example 1, Strip No. 1 and 2.5 and 6,8 and 9 were considered to be combined into one each and
Similar values as above were calculated and tabulated. and M y thus obtained are expected to be values likely to be met with if analysis is carried out for all combinations. percentage increase or decrease in the values of moments due to earthquake effect has .10 relating to Example 2 also the values of moments in the rigid method analysis are higher than the values expected in any combination of raft thickness. strip Nos. In the first part thickness was kept constant and values of modulus of subgrade reaction were changed. 7. 6. These values have been tabulated in Tables 7. . however. values of soil modulus and seismic forces is required to be considered. been worked out and then applied to maximum values of moments for any combination of thickness and K. The extent of difference between the 2 values varies but in general these values are higher than those likely to be obtained by each analysis. some method is to be evolved which could bring these to a common base. 1 was carried out in 2 parts.9 for Example 1 shows that the values of bending moments in the rigid raft analysis are always higher than those which could be possible for any combination of raft thickness and modulus of subgrade reaction and the earthquake effect. In Table 7. Since the objective have been only to get an idea of variation. approach may be lower than those expected in the actual structure under seismic consideration. it was decided that comparison may be made of the maximum positive. he being free to adopt any of them but the effect of seismic forces would be applicable to all of them. the cases considered have been restricted in the manner explained above. all permutations and combinations of the raft thickness. would have involved much more computational efforts. the effect of horizontal loads was considered for single thickness of 1 metre of raft slab and one value of modulus six loads cases were considered for the purpose of comparison and the variation in bending moments in the raft due to earthquake loads were worked out.9 and 7.10 for Examples 1 and 2. respectively. For comparing both. Therefore. minimum negative and the average of all positive and negative values determined by each method. it is difficult to say as to what thickness and what value of Ksout of the four values would be adopted by any designer. In fact. 1 and 2. 7 and 8 were combined and analysed as a combined footing. values of M.3 Discussion of Results Table 7. The values obtained in the conventional rigid method are at the sections along the length or width of the raft. soil modulus and considering earthquake effects except in case of M ymaximum and M yaverage. I L= I . Both these rafts have already been considered in Study Nos. This indicates that there may be sections wherein values of moments determined by rigid raft. Study No. After careful consideration. Ratio of maximum and minimum value of moments in X and Y direction were worked out for each element and tabulated. Similarly. If acomplete picture of the variation in the values of moments in the raft was to be obtained. In Study 2 (refer ljara 7. The values of the bending moments were calculated in all these strips at the column point and mid point of the span and also at the points where the raft changes width. It would be noted that the values of bending moments obtained in finite element analysis are for each element and represent the values of the bending moments at the centre of that element in both the directions. In the second part value of Ks was kept constant and values of thicknesses were varied. in Example 2. This.2 above). maximum negative. minimum positive.58 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS also analyzed. This comparison would reasonably indicate extent of variation in the values of moments determined by the two methods.3.
15. Mxx(+ve) KNm Min.24 233.56.26 2 409.1 Finite Element Analysis considering Seismic Loads also for Ks= 10996 K N / ~ ~ and d = 1.18.39 6 914.142 72.16.2% 25.38 40.53 0.63 0.15.43 346.9   536.56 Rigid Raft Analysis considering Individual Strips Values for Rigid Raft Analysis for Strips Decreased by 30 % i.17% 129.2 .032 .851 % .98 174.7 423. Min.21 266.89 69. Avg. Min.9 19.7 0.13 .82 532.2 205.e 7 x 0. M.7 7 8 605.6 .v e Implies Tension at Bottom) 1 Max.34 89. Avg.68 .0.91 .08 .19.91 293.01 126.977 212. Max.74 48.28 My.54% 481.24.2 413.9 Example 1 : (. (.59.1011. (ve) KNm Min.6 289.19.6 0.27 555.39   3 4 151.47 44.42 167.67 205.73 185. Max.Table 7.14.0 54.6 402.37.91 .47 .4 3.0 .26 5 471. Max.0.046 36.5 .9 1.50 .64% 187.4% 88.v e ) KNm Avg.5% 36.173.78 .0 .92 .0 .7 .13 .80 487.52 372.0238 39..0m 162.2 52.e.0 4.51 317.06 82.1.78 0.76 .0. 1 Finite Element Analysis Considering Vertical Loadr on1y for Ks = 10996 KN/m" a n d d = 1.4 0.27 M.106 76. .4% 590% 142.544 112.3 707.19. ( + v e ) KNm Avg.37% 137.58 8.6.5 574.15.15.4% 81.6 8.8% 96. .235 .0m Percentage Increase of 2 over 1 Finite Element Analysis considering Vertical Loads only for any Combination of Ks and d Expected Values for Finite Element Analysis for any Combination of Ks and d if Seismic Loads also were Considered i.39 .30 242.8 0.1.19. 4 x 3 Rigid Raft Analysis considering the Raft as a whole 0.
17 2    280.79 % .76 2 z 154.4 78.683.7 87.4 . Max.10  .517 .20 14. (. M..0 .542.43 198.2 33.02 300.644.1.629 .65 %   25. Avg.24 400.1 45. Min. Max.283. Avg.47 7.1030. Avg.0 61.0m FiniteElementAnalysis considering Seismic Loads only for Ks= 10996 KN/rn3 andd= ].2   .9 48.88 3 4    16.321 62.356.341. Max.Table 7.401 3 ' Y 9 V.e 4 x 3 Rigid Raft Analysis considering the Raft as a whole Rigid Raft Analysis considering Individual Strips Raft Values for R~gid Analysis for Strips decreased by 30 % i.810.9 154.191.014 .46 .43.133.194. Avg.1337.03 5.20 _ L J 1 .O 280.67 .721.12.139 205.88.89 .170 280. M.193.239. .e 7 x 0.10 Example 1 : (.14 .7    .254.9 154.4  .37.7 .OM Percentage Increase of 2 over 1 Finite Element Analysis considering Vertical Loads only for any Combination KFand d Expected Values for Finite Element Analysis for any combination of Ks and d if Seismic Loads also were considered i.50 %  .95 . Mxx (+ve) Km N Min.ve) Km N Min.192.29 .6 148.1 221.82 % .4 51.1.9 .6 89.41 .9 631.07% 6. (ve) Km N I   My.02 .99 416.0.86 % 21 1.54    .31 1 . 0 7 8 400. V.04 I D v.125.06 5    416.32% 0.6 .9    .80. 1 Finite Element Analysis considering Vertical Loads also for Ks = 10996KN/m3 andd= 1.342.95 .1.014 210.6.75 5 n 6 .5 . (+ve) Km N Min.ve Implies Tension at Bottom) 1 Max.6 .314.83 4.30.
37 505.6 65.86 392.56 529.18 176. Example 2 5 6 7 8 9 6+7+8 Raft as a whole 578.0 1911.50 139.25 248.) I 10 11 12 13 8+9 Raft as a whole 386.34 3922 392.d m ) M (Max.75 286.2 217.7 536.06 181.6 118.d m ) (Continuous Beam) wL2/10 (KN.d m ) 1 2 3 4 7 1 +2 5+6 1011.2 156.58 *914.03 281.d m ) (Continuous Beam) wL2/10 (KN .10 M y (Max.7 Table 7. Rigid Raft Method (KN .4 839.0 116. O 87.0 364.54 392.0 Raft as a whole Myy(Max.0 605.0 143.10 21 1. (Max.08 566.09 207.96 260.678 156.07 373.3 503.) 1 2 3 4 I Raft as a whole .65 44.) .0 574.0 293.9 868.0 650.86 410.0 403.25 260.1 1 T M.55 281. of Moments Strip No.2 370. Rigid Raft Method (KN.6 116. of Moments Strip NO.) Example I Dir.7 186.01 *Smaller Width of Section Considered 223.0 631.35 175.12 Dir.19 253.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS 61 Table 7.09 137.
This is in line with the recommendations of Mr. Another Office Building This is an office building which has six blocks. This may. The loads considered were only vertical loads. arise wherein continuous beam analogy values may not lead to safe designs.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS 7. In this study. The superstructurehas been analysed on a three dimensional analysis programme on computer considering the earthquake effects and the values oi column loads.11 and 7. Through the building looks symmetrical in plan but due to loadings and position of few columns this is not so. A study of these tables would indicate that bending moments determined by ~ ~ ~are always lower than those 1 1 0 determined by combined footings approach in general.3.5 Conclusions This study has shown that values of moments determined by conventional combined footings approach are higher than the values likely to be obtained after considering the variation of changes in rigidity of the raft. these two central blocks have been considered. 5 of each Tables 7.3. 7. mumty and water tanks above the general terrace level.12. The rigidity of the raft .1 Example Details The design of the raft has been done utilising beam and slab constructl'on with beams projecting upward. The two central blocks are separated from the two storeyed blocks. A plan of the raft is shown in Fig. i. Situations may.12 are not always higher than the expected values of moments in row No. increase and decrease in column loads due to the earthquake obtained. bending moments. For Examples 1 and 2 the maximum value of bending moments determined by combined footing approach and inverted floor approach in these directions for each strip and raft as a whole have been tabulated in Tables 7. For this purpose raft was considered to consist of beams only in both longitudinal and transverse directions. calculated from soil properties.4 Study 4. Each central block has a lift machine room. stair case..4 Znverted Floor Method In the other method. has also been a practice in design offices not to adopt the values for design purposes lower than WL2/10 at any of the sections of this case. Though not mentioned specifically in any text book there. I 7. The analysis for raft has been done utilising SAP 5 Computer Programme based on finite elements method.11 and 7. contact pressures and deflections of the raft when earthquake effects are taken into account against only vertical loads considered in the first analysis. design bending moment values obtained from the analysis were subjected to a minimum value of w12 / 10 where W is the load carried by the beam per unit length considering the raft as an inverted floor. ZS? 7.e. This study also shows that WL2/10 values shown in Tables 7.10. Inverted floor also called beam analogy method by some designers.9 and 7. Analysis of each strip bounded by the column bay centre line is carried out as a continuous beam in both the directions as compared to analysis by simple statics in the combined footings approach. These values have been utilised to study the variation in the values of shear forces.These blocks are separated by a separation joint from each other but the raft foundation is continuous. therefore. Two central blocks are eightstoreyed with basement while the side blocks are two storeyed with basements.~omlinson'O. However. however. The finite elements chosen are the beam elements of the beam slab foundation system. M ~.4. the raft is treated as an inverted floor. soil pressure distribution. base moment. values of modulus subgrade reaction and earthquake forces. Each of these beams was analysed as a beam on an elastic foundation utilising value of modulus of sub grade reaction. be not true in case of inverted floor system even where using wL2/10 as lower bound values. taking into account the assumptions made.
1 1 .SLAB THICKNESS =400mm BEAMS ALONG XX =I000 XI200 mm BEAMS ALONG YY =I000 X800 mm (ALL DIMENSIONS ARE I N MM) Fig. 7.
00128.1 above. for vertical load alone is 24.0 1195. each node is also the point of application of concentrated loads (vertical load forces and moments).12 42.V .0 . Node Nos.30 1.73 .0 125. V 09.07 B P . 13.98 04. The spring constant is a function of soil sub grade modulus and the area under the node.81 4.50 116. vertical loads and their values for seismic loads acting in positive X direction.5 KN giving a ratio of 0.39.526.3 Ratio (W.21 04.94+ 01.65 B M . .50 + 550.20 .60 104.05 104. positive Y direction and negative Y direction have been considered.01 195.00 1.75 .27 102.11 have been selected.003 + 19.66 .90 .88 1797.39.20 3.56 .25 40 0.58. 450.90.70 + 30. vertical loads only.53.17108.50 09.34 47. KN BM.02 + 01.70 .63 .65 .125.529.57.76. P B 05.003 to 19.99. 5 0 0.6 KNm/ mZ  Min.00 0.60 1851.38.81 244.40535.54 130.07 KN to 467..00 148.50 ' 105. vertical loads plus base moments due to vertical loads only.98+51. All these values are shown in Table 7.11 128.32 0.22 B M .4. 05.56 . KNm BP.90 B M .00 1851.32 .549.07 04.00 4.83 + 2250.52 . . The soil has been idealised as a spring under each node. Also shown are the values obtained in simplified flexible design explained in 7. negative X direction. Maximum increase in shear force is seen in case of beam element No.40.54 59. Range of Variations Conventional Design Values.57.38. 7.90. .16 + 00.20 145.172. 7.4.45 . 44 where ratio goes as high as 92.25 j 2 4 4 .95 + 59.00 130. Ma*.20 2250.94+01. 460.11 42.08 109.21 .80 0.00 0..58 159.25 138.36 118.37 130.21.50 2080.T Case I ) Min.46 .10 145.30 1.64 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS slab is not considered.V 07.2 Comparison of Results Six different cases of loading i.21 10.07 19. it varies from 0.89 . some beam elements shown in Fig.74 .23 .06 . Load Case and Element No.93.For other load cases. 2.71 47.125.27 KN.R. For comparison of results.83 160.0 1.e.00 513.555.26 1797.12 24.40 110.00 1359.22 123.02 + 1.58. 6 54. 30. The maximum (larger of the values on the two nodes) shear force.00 240.80 ..26.76 + 40.96 .02 2080.51.91 66.3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 V.01 + 1.3 Discussions of Results A study of the table would show that: (a) Shear force for beam element No. Also shown in this table are the ratios these values have with the value considering vertical load alone.172.12+ 11. 11 16 1.68 00. Each beam element is defined by two nodes.4.527.73 . P B 89. contact pressure and deflection in Z direction have been tabulated along with the range of these values.13.12 116. 40. Table 71 .10 53.. 7.33 40.06 + 01.25 106.513.58 125. 24.07 + 467.65 + 110.67 .12 Max 1319. 15.22 .90 157.63 + 160.50 0.0 1195.11 + 138.70 45.37 . bending moment.54 + 22.79 550.10 + 1.58 154.40.00 24.51 47.79 + 13. 6 10.24 + 2.
20 148.03 + 198.54 139.10 105.66 B .93 + .62 .63 + 160.93 amax 24.59.70 763.27 740.03 + 1.245.57.00 0.56.30 84..21 mm giving a ratio of 0. 01.83 KNM to + 2250.25 110.21 48.93 V .02 + 01.I0 .46 ...63 06.75 130.18 + 92.38 B .30 1.00 .00 727.69 130.03+1.26 41 I 65 r I 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 88.36 + 05.55.00 1.69 52.0 1 195.57 + 153.29 + 2.0 .56.15 .20 B ..50116.56 57.0 125.125.23 + 14.. . (d) Deflection due to vertical load alone in case of beam No. P .08 0. Case 6 : Seismic Force in YDirection.67 152.30 1.33 1.71 amax .8 7 81.97 148.42 1284. 50.68 .54 130. 18 I 26 1105.58 50.97 V .536.25 V .59.00 24. it varies from .53.58 0.07 198.63 47.96 153.29 44 4.21 148.200. ~ ~ (c) Bearing pressure due to vertical loads alone in case of beam No. (b) Bending moment for Beam element No.00 115.36 j 2 .67 j611.62 42.0 KNM.45 .00 Case 1 : Vertical Loads only.93 + 59.42 29.08 129.42.87 235.46 43.89 160.45 + 145.66 .47 1. Minimum positive Bending moments in this.54.63 157.62 + 116.84.42 + 346. 5 9 0.60112.92 707. Maximum increase is also in this beam.75 .67 535.73 mm. M .53 143. ' Case 2 : Vertical Load + Base Moments.11 0.66 130.98 to 5 1. 28.25+48.80 536.06 214.03 .55.88 . All Loads Correspond to un Factored Condition.125. 40 for vertical load alone is 102. P 28.82 09.12.53 1 4.97 . P .20 130.20 1284.92.92.01 195.73 137.94 to 1.75 151.21 20.44.90 2.17j2788.55 V .17 346..09 0.67 148.56.30 139.60 65.92 + 1. Maximum increase in bearing pressure is also in this beam.92 141.56 amax 805.12. 76.92 611.47.08 138.58.42 292. Case 4 : Seismic Force in X Direction.56.68 .22 B .02. .47 105.57 59.0 1 195.22 giving a ratio 0.09 1026.58 2788.26 90. For other load cases.67 438.17 + 0.98 BM. 2 is 45.23 137.43 0.98 233.83 0.86 79.125.7 K N / with maximum of 138.71 53..13 (Continued) 25. 23.57 153. These are the beam which are heavily loaded at the nodes.30 01.06 + 01 .98 + 01.01 195.92 603. For other load case.53 BP.45.00 + .43 + 152.83 153.156.51.51.0 . Case 3 : Vertical Loads + Seismic Loads (Seismic Force in +X Direction).80 0.54 to 22.22 .STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON EFFECT OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS Table 7. 98.99 giving a ratio of 0.92 + 1... it varies from .37 .08 29. The variation is more in beams which are heavily loaded in the nodes and the beams which is discontinued at both nodes.54 155. Maximum increase is also occurring in this beam.00 1.60 140.00 59. .22 BM.53.73 154.33 145.51.67 129. The safe bearing pressure recommended by soil consultant is 130 KN/~'.88 14. 2 is 123. .2 KNM. 89. Case 5 : Vertical Loads + Seismic Loads(seismic Force in +Y Direction).01 46.91 723.01 j 0 .10 145.98 + 01. 3 5 762.92 113.95 51.2080.46 145.14 .58 420.67 108.element is 54.01 BM.98 .66 + 56.67 + 03.27 272.1442.69 + 438.94 to 1.0 .
(b) The design done by the method actually adopted is safe except at one point.4 m) which is comparatively rigid as compared to a raft of uniform thickness. when the resisting moment of the section as actually provided was calculated at this section it was found to be safe. This is a beam and slab raft (Beam size 1. ease of fabrications etc. confirming the statement that even inverted floor approach could lead to unsafe design. Except in case of element No. it is to be kept in mind that while detailing the reinforcement in members like raft. Simultaneously.4 Conclusions These results show that: (a) While variation in bending moment and shear force values are very large.2 m x 1 m. (f) When bending moment values for any of the load are compared with the values on the method adopted for design (keeping in view the higher permissible stresses in working stress method and lower load factor in limit state design permitted while considering seismic effect) it is seen that these values are lower. In fact. 7.4.8 m x 1 m with slab thickness of 0. this is not so for beanng pressure and settlement. 0. This is what was expected.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS (e) When shear force values of any beam for any of the load case is compared with S. frequent curtailment is not practical in view of various restrictions like minimum development length.F.  i . 41. value in method adopted for actual design these are always lower. 1 .
raft. As further improvement to this method. some designers use the concept of beam on elastic foundation. The properties of the spring are determined depending upon the type and elastic properties of the piles neglecting the effect of one pile on the other and different soil layer on each other. raft is taken as a plate supported on springs. different practices are followed by various designers. wherein the raft is assumed to be rigid. piles and the soil medium.1 Design Procedures being Used Rafts supported on plles are being increasingly used for multistoreyed buildings with basements in poor soils with high water table conditions. Effect . As a variation of this method. neglecting the effect of one pile cap on the other. Here again various methods are available. In another approach individual pile caps below each column are provided and are connected either by a slab of the thickness equal to that of the pile cap or of a lesser thickness. Where computer facilities are available. superstructure. Piles are uniformly distributed throughout the raft and a planar distribution of pressure is considered on the raft due to the piles. For design of piled raft. The problem is to be understood by considering the composite behaviour of the entire system. some designers try to concentrate more pile under the heavily loaded columns as compared to lightly loaded columns assuming that it would give a better uniform distribution on the piles.. Some designers assume a uniform distribution of load on piles replacing the piles by a soil medium having a hypothetical bearing capacity.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 8. These factors influence sharing of load berween piles and raft. Piles are sometimes used to decrease the settlement of the raft. shears and moments in the raft. The analysis of piled raft is a complex problem even more than that of a soil supported raft as too many parameters influence the behaviour of the system. Most simple method followed is the conventional rigid approach. between piles themselves and consequently the settlements. viz. The piles are necessary to transmit the superstructure loads to a deeper competent soil strata and the raft is required to transmit the column/wall loads evenly to the piles and also to resist the buoyancy forces of the ground water. The raft as a solid medium integrated with the retaining walls with necessary water proofing layer also serves as a water proofing medium. Very little is known about the exact behaviour of piled raft foundations in service. K value corresponding to this bearing capacity is selected and used for analysis. substructure.
thickness selected.0 3.5 7. However.1.e.5 5. In all these analysis. ie. the presumed thickness of the raft affects final shears and bending moments in the raft and the loads on the piles. variation in column loads and base moments due to earthquake and the type of piles.5 .5 8. but it is applicable for piles less than 40 in number and makes assumptions which are controversial. thickness of the raft and the safe load carrying capacity of the pile is decided before hand.4. stores etc. The basement is to accommodate substation.5 3. The piles are predominantly friction piles of 50 cm diameter and 21m length. i.0 . earthquake and wind.0 2. In beam on elastic foundation concept the rigidity of the raft plays a very important role and.20 m. on pile loads and raft moments. effect of rigidity of the raft.68 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS of one pile on another and different soil layers can also be considered.9. There has also been a practice of designing the raft foundation for vertical loads alone excluding the effect of column base moments or the effect of horizontal load. The building is proposed to be constructed in a pond by retaining the water body. The foundation is proposed to be provided with piled raft with overall dimensions as shown in Fig. the effect of superstructure rigidity.0 .5 3. has been calculated and studied. there are no practical methods available for working out this extent of sharing. No effort is.2 Example Selected The problem is studied by considering a real building with piled raft.3 Soil Data The subsoil below the bed levcl of the pond consists of successive layers of silty claylclayey silt down to 30 m depth and beyond. The entire building has a basement and has a Tshaped plan.5 5.5 Average SPT Values ( N ) I I1 111 IV V VI Fill Material Grey silty claylclayey sandy silt Greyldark grey silty clay with organic matterldecayed wood Mottled greyhluish grey silty clay with kankar Yellowish greylmottled grey silty claylclayey silt Mottled grey clayey siltlclayey sandy silt with laminations 1 3 11 17 25 . In this study. There would be 708 bore castinsitu piles. 8.0 .4. The thickness of raft considered is 1.0 5. air conditioning plant. Sharing of loads between piles and raft soil system has also been suggested n d followed by some. The sequence of soil stratification is summarised in Table 8. 8. 8.1 Sequence of Soil Stratification Stratwn Description Thickness (m) Range Average 2. The side blocks are two storeyed with an eight storeyed central block.5 3. Table 8.7. however. generally made to quantify this effect and optimise the thickness of the raft. This is done in computer programmes wherein the spring replacing piles are coupled both horizontally and vertically meaning that the deflection of any spring is affected by adjacent springs.4 .5 ..6. The mat superstructure interaction is usually neglected. None of these methods take into account the effect of the soil foundation interaction except to the limited extend mentioned in each of the method above. ~oulos" has suggested a method.5 4.. therefore.1.4.
4.1 Combinedfooting approach The drastic simplification adopted in this model is that the closely spaced piles. Then for these known column loads acting on the beam the upward soil pressure is determined and the moments and the shears at any section is determined by simple statics.4. (spacing nearly equal to or less than the d l thickness) can be approximated as a bed of equivalent soil strata. The row of column loads perpendicular to the length of the beam are clubbed together as single column load.Fig.1. Then the moment per unit width of the raft is i : . Here the raft is idealised as a large beam member independently in both the direction.4 Methods of Analysis Studied ! In this study the following methods have been adopted : (a) Conventional rigid method with simplified models as (i) Combined footing approach (ii) continuous beam analogy or inverted floor (b) Using finite element approach ' 8. The raft is analysed by conventional rigid approach using simple statics without any consideration for the elastic properties of the raft and the soil.1 Conventional Rigid Method with Simplified Models 8. 8.1 Plan of raft showing strips considered 8.
However in case of continuous beam analogy method.4.2 Raft Moments obtained by conventional Rigid Methods S f No. The values of moments obtained by this method are given in Table 8. Table 8.2. the maximum positive and negative moments (excepting the cantilevering The 0 portions at the ends) is taken as ~ ~ ~ .2 it could be seen that. The values of moments obtained by this approach are also indicated in Table 8. The analysis is also repeated for individual strips with relevant column load. 1 1 procedure is repeated also for individual strips with their corresponding average upward.1. Assumption that such a long raft acts as a rigid member is the main cause of such high values of moments obtained by this method.3 Cornpanson of results From Table 8. the average soil pressure of the equivalent soil strata under the raft is determined by dividing the total column loads by the plan area of the raft neglecting the effect of eccentricity of loads and moments. not known. Then analysis is repeated for the other direction (Y direction). As an approximation. however.2 Continuous beam analogy: invertedjoor . Many designers consider the former value to be unrealistically high and these values reasonable and adopt them for the purposes of approximate designs. equivalent soil pressure. ' The other approach of the rigid method is to use the continuous beam analogy by treating the raft as an inverted floor. . The basis of this differentiation is. This approach adopted by the early designers tends to give high values of moments with long rafts.2. The moments and shears of the continuous beam is determined by method of moment distribution or by any other standard method.1. the column points are only taken as rigid supports of the inverted continuous beam. First. The plan configuration of the raft with the location of the strips are shown in Fig. With no consideration of actual column loads. the raft thickness shall be very large with heavy requirement of steel. Raft is considered as a whole in both the directions and idealised as a long continuous beam with known intensity of upward pressure based on average soil pressure mentioned above.70 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS $ determined by dividing the moment values by the corresponding width of the section.4. 8. fg f 8' I. the value of bending moments obtained are comparatively lower. in case of rigid method with simplified models of combined footing approach momentdshears determined by simple statics. 8. 8. If one attempts to proportion the raft with these values. the value of the bending moments obtained in X and Y directions are quite large.1. 1 Description Combinedfooting approach ( K N d m width) As continuous beam analogy (KNm per metre width) Raft as whole in X direction Raft as whole in Y direction X direction Strips A B C Y direction Strips 1 2 .
STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 71 8. The effect of increase in the raft sbffness on the pile load variation along a strip is shown in Fig. However. In the present case of piled raft. Considering the stiffening effect of superstructure (ie. is the effective length of the pile. the raft discretised as plate bending elements.2 of the raft increases the raft moments upto 325. thls variation reduces nearly to 10 per cent. Normally the soil medium is discretised into a number of rectangular prism elements.The raft is considered to be entirely supported on the piles and do not have any soil support underneath. although the confining effect of soil on the frictional piles is considered by considering the effective length of the pile as half the length of the pile. . where E is the modulus of elasticity. This clearly shows that raft with assumed thickness is not rigid enough so as to distribute the loads on to the piles uniformly and number of piles wlll be carrying loads upto 1.4. It is is seen that beyond a ten fold increase in raft stiffness the pile load variat~on very small. the raft has been modelled as plate bending elements and the piles are modelled as axial elements. en^' 8. The supporting soil is treated as consisting of different layers of homogeneous linear elastic material with corresponding elastic modulus determined with reference to soil properties. This is done essentially to asstarting from single E value upto~a certain the effect of raft stiffness on pile loads and raft moments. piles as compressible elastic axial elements. However. vjz. as recommended by ~ o w l e s "and the axial stiffness of the pile element has been taken as EAIL. piles and soil medium with appropriate finite element types and carry out the analysis by considering the interaction between thesecomponents.5.2 Piled Raft Analysis Based on Finite Element Approach A more sophisticated method of analysis models the complete system. This generalised approach requires enormous computational efforts.This analysls has been camed out value of 50 times E. The increase in moment values in the raft with hypothetical Increase in stiffness values along a Xdirection strip and Y strlp are graphically shown in F~gs. it is essential to include the additional stiffening effect of the structure above the raft level.5 Study of Parameters Influencing the Raft Behaviour 8. No exclusive modelling of the soil medium has been done. simplified versions of finite element approach are commonly adopted with the use of computers. no separate modelling of the superstructure has been done. This has been adopted for computational convenience. its stiffness contribution on the overall behaviour of the system has been approximately considered as discussed subsequently.and 50fold increase in stiffness value 8. raft. respectively. In this study a general purpose three dimensional finite element package (SAPIV Structural Analysis Package) has been used. A lo.75 times the average load. time consuming and quite expensive and hence cannot be used in normal design practice. at increments of 10E. In this case the stiffness effect of superstructure is included in the .value corresponding to 3 E) this pile load variation decreases to 50 per cent. at certain locations. In such analysis.1 Effext of Raft Stiffness on the Pile Loads and Raft Moments In this study the effect of raft stiffness is considered by increasing the E value of the raft instead of increasing the thickness of raft. 450 and 600 per cent. the superstructure is modelled as a three dimensional space frame. the superstructure. With the 10fold increase in raft stiffness (which amounts to more than doubling the raft thickness). 20... and 8. A is area of cross section of the pile and L.4. ' 8.3.5. This is particularly true in the present case where the building is located in a pond. Similarly. Due to the variation in raft rigidity the pile load variation is upto 75 per cent over the safe load. The piles being predominantly frictional piles.2 Effect of Superstructure and Retaining WaUs on Foundation Stiffness To obtain a realistic assessment of foundation performance. 8.
i. Element numbers F g 8 3 Effect of Raft Stiffness on Raft Moments Along Ydirection Strip. . i. .RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Element numbers F g 8 2 Effect of Raft Stiffness on Raft Moments Along Xdirection Strip. .
8.4 Effect of Raft Stiffness on Pile Loads Along Xdirection Strip. 8.5 Effect of Superstructure and Retaining Wall on Raft Moments Along Xdirection Strip. .STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS Ekment numbers Fig. 60  Only rat t stiffness Combined st i t f ness 1 a Element numbers 5 Fig.
6. This causes a large eccentricity of loads with respect to the C. Beside the raft.28 m only. 1 ' 1.G of the raft.4 Effect of End Bearing and Friction Piles In practice both types of piles. The effect of earthquake has been studied with respect to the variation of the moments in the raft and the pile loads. on the other. frictional or end bearing or a combination of both. 8. the other factors remaining same. This effect has been shown for chosen X direction and Y direction strips in Figs.73 m. procedure for this eightstoreyed building. the raft moments tend to increase and the increase being in the order of 2070 per cent over the values obtained considering the stiffness of the raft alone. I I 1 ' 1 . The variation between the loads carried by the individual piles also tend to decrease due to this effect.5 and 8. This behaviour will induce differential settlement causing additional moments in the raft. This shows the raft moments in seismic conditions cannot be ignored as they are likely to govern in certain situations (Fig. may be encountered at site. The raft is analysed by finite element modelling explained earlier for each of the above cases.5. the vertical load and seismic analysis of the building was done using a three dimensional analysis package. for the earthquake forces along the + Y direction the seismic moments are found to be more. and the critical values of loads and moments are obtained.5. Due to the stiffening effect of these components.3 Effect of Earthquake Loads and Moments When subjected to earthquake forces (lateral loads).8). the superstructure frame and the infill walls will also come in play in resisting the foundation moments due to the composite action. The pile loads tend to increase in the regions in the far end of the raft in the direction of the earthquake due to the overturning effect of lateral loads on the foundation. alter the pile loads and raft moments. it is necessary to investigate the effect of earthquake loading for the design of the raft. on the one side. This will. . In the present study. column loads and base moments get affected causing increase in column load. Hence. This behaviour is not surprising while the raft is continuous. The loads and moments of the columns at the foundation level are determined for seismic loads applied in two orthogonal directions independently. Analysis is made for the nonseismic condition (load factor = 1. These three blocks behave independently in seismic condition and their effect on foundations with earth quake in X direction is compensatingrather than additive. in turn. and corresponding decrease. 8. These analysis indicated that for Xdirection the raft moments in nonseismic conditions are generally more compared to the seismic condition except at few locations where the seismic moments are more (Fig.2) as per Limit State Method. However. the bending stiffness contribution of superstructure is of the order of 20 per cent of the raft stiffness and the original raft thickness of 1. This in turn also results in uneven loading on the piles. 8. superstructureis in three blocks separated by the expansion joints. 8. this has not been considered in the present study as the effect is very small. 8.2 m get enhanced to equivalent thickness of 1. TABS. The stiffness of the raft is kept at its actual stiffness. Similarly. However.7). The behaviour of the pile raft will change due to change in the axial stiffness of the pile which depends upon its effective length.74 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS raft analysis by adding the cumulative bending stiffness of the floor slabs to that of the raft stiffness and As ~ this equivalentraft thickness is obtained as recommended by ~ o o ~ e r per ~ . the stiffness effect of retaining walls is also included in the raft analysis by adding the bending stiffnessof retaining walls and the superstructure to that of the raft. In this case theequivalent bending stiffness of the raft works out to 3 times and the raft thickness gets enhanced to an equivalent thickness of 1.5) and the seismic condition (load factor = 1.
i 3 Element numbers 5 Fig.6 Effect of Superstructure and Retaining Wall on Raft Moments Along Ydirection Strip. 8. .7 Effect of Earthquake. 8.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 9 Element numbers 5 Fig. Forces on Raft Moments About Y .Axis Along Xdirection Strip.
Fig.Direction Strip. .RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Element numbers Fig.9 Effect of Pile Type (Friction and End Bearing) on Raft Moments Along Y .8 Effect of Earthquake Forces on Raft Moments About X . 8.Direction Strip. 8.Direction Along X .
Element n u m b e e Fig. 8.10 Effect of Pile Type (Friction and End Bearing) on Pile Loads Along X . the pile load variation also decreases due to a less flexible behaviour of such rafts. 8. AS the end bearing piles are more flexible. This behaviour is indicated in Fig.2. For the raft supported on end bearing piles.2 times.4. respectively.10).7 times. In this case. particularly in case of very large sized rafts. Considering an initial thickness of the raft based on punching shear consideration then increasing the thickness by 2.5 and 6 times. respectively. This effect studied in the present problem indicated that the moments of the raft supported on end bearing piles are increased 10 to 40 per cent compared to friction piles supported rafts.5 Summary o Results f The results of the analysis are summarised as under: (a) Rafts analysed by conventional rigidmethod with moments determined by simple statics gives very high values. compared to rafts supported on friction piles which tends to show more flexible behaviour (Fig. 8. increases the raft moments by 2. . Increase in raft thickness however decreases pile load variation which more or less becomes uniform at thickness equal to 2. moments determined by continuous beam analogy as an inverted floor results in lower values. (b) Increase in raft thickness results increases in raft moments.5. in the present modelling.25.2. the axial stiffness for friction piles and end bearing piles are taken as 2AEIL and AUL.raft supported on such flexible piles tend to behave in a more rigid manner compared to the raft supported on friction piles. However. 8.STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS 77 As stated earlier. the moments obtained by simple statistics is nearly six times than the moments obtained by continuous beam analysis.7 and 3.Direction Strip.9.
78
RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS
(c) Pile loads increased upto 175 per cent of the safe load carrying capacity for assumed thickness of 1.2 m. However increase in raft thickness (increase in rigidity) tends to decrease the difference in loads camed out by the individual piles. By doubling the initial raft thickness, the variation between the pile loads decreases from 75 to 10 per cent. Further increase in raft thickness further decreases this percentage at a slower rate. (d) The effect of superstructure on the raft moments is not substantial. If the effect of stiffening of the retaining wall is also considered then h e increase in raft moments is only 1.2 to 1.7 times over the moments considering the raft alone. The common practice is not to design the raft for these increased moments as these are to be re proportioned and resisted by super structure and retaining walls. (e) Under seismic conditions, the increase in base moments and the column loads affects the raft moments. In the present case, analysis for earthquake along Ydirection has increased the raft design moments upto 2.5 times compared to nonseismic conditions. However, for earthquake analyses in other directions, the design moments are not more than for nonseismic conditions. Pile loads get increased upto 200 per cent. It is also to be kept in view that for seismic condition on increase is permissible stress upto 50 per cent is allowed. (f) The type of piles (frictional pilesor end bearing piles) also affect raft moments. The raft moments obtained with end bearing piles are of the order of 1.1 to 1.4 times compared to those obtained with assumption of friction piles.
8.6
Discussions
In conventional design and construction practice, the rafts are being designed for vertical column loads only and piles of equal capacity are provided throughout the raft. The stiffening effect of the superstructure, the column base moments due to vertical loads and even the seismic effect on the column loads and their base moments are neglected. This is being done irrespective of the fact whether the raft was being considered as rigid or flexible. In practice though, the piles are assumed to be of the same length, their length vary depending upon the soil variation. For normally adopted thickness of raft satisfying the punching shear consideration,the raft would be quite flexible and this could cause the differential loads on the piles. The piles in the vicinity of the columns will be loaded more as compared to the piles away from the columns. Such heavilyloaded piles exceed safe load capacity. This behaviour will induce differential settlements causing additional moments in the raft. When earthquake effects are considered, the variation pointed out above get further increased and moments become very large. The practice of designing the piled raft as rigid raft with piles replaced by and equivalent soil medium and moments determined by simple statics give very high moment values for large sized rafts. This requires higher thickness and higher quantity of steel as compared to that required by other methods. This method being very conservative covered up many assumptions as pointed out earlier. Rigid raft approach with moments detennined by continuous beam analogy, i.e., inverted floor give lower values of moments coinpared to above approach, and while considered to be reasonable by many designers and used for approximate design has also been considered as dangerous by others. In this study, however, it is seen that the values obtained for this approach more or less account for the assumptions pointed out above. In design office where computer facilities are available, rafts are being analysed by flexible approach considering the stiffness of the raft alone. The piles are being assumed to be equally loaded and hence piles of equal safe load capacity are provided throughout the raft. All other assumption of designing the raft only for vertical loads, neglecting the seismic effects, are being made. This study has shown that the variation of
,
STUDIES CARRIED OUT ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILED RAFTS
79
I
!
I
;
1
!
moments in the rafts, while these factors are considered, are very substantial and the raft design, neglecting these factors, would not be safe. Even the piles will be subjected to loads much higher than their safe carrying capacity and consequently affect the structure. It would, thus, be seen that in case flexible approach is adopted, for the designer two options are available. In the first alternative, a thickness large enough to obtain a rigid behaviour with piles of equal capacity is provided. In the other alternative, raft of normal thickness exhibiting flexible behaviour and piles having a capacity to sustain the maximum loads likely to come on any of the piles are provided. However, it would be necessary to analyse the raft for all conditions of loading without making any assumption pointed out above and design the raft for worst values of moments also. It is clear that the practice of designing the raft on flexible approach and simultaneously making the assumption being made in conventional design is not a safe practice.
8.7
Conclusions
, i
In this study three approaches of piled raft analysis as recommended in the literature and adopted by practical designers have been discussed in detail along with the effect of various assumptions being made. The results indicate that while the rigid raft approach by simple statics using vertical loads for columns alone, gives highest value of moments, the flexible raft approach carried out for column vertical loads alone, neglecting the effect of rigidity, effect of pile types, and earthquake loads, may lead to unsafe design both for the raft as well as the piles. This study was presented by the author at the International Symposium on Innovative World of Concrete, held at Bangalore India, AugustSeptember, 1993.
JOINTS IN RAFTS
$
Joints are required to be provided in building superstructures to take care of thermal and seismic effects. Concepts in this connection are more or less clear and no difficulty is generally experienced in locating these joints. Structural designers, however, face a question as to whether these joints should be extended to foundation raft. There are no clear guidelines available on this aspect. In buildings where there are no basements, this question has a simple answer in the affirmative as there is not much of difficulty in extending the joints in the raft. This provision rather becomes helpful as the continuity of the raft is broken and even conventional rigid methods, if adopted, for analysis and designs does not create any problem. However, where the buildings have basements, provision of joints requires a deeper thought as joints are always a source of le*ge in the building. If the buildings have basements, foundations are generally more than 3 m below ground level and are very little affected by thermal variations. Thermal effects are, therefore, not of much consequence at this depth. Seismic effects, however, are still important as they are independent of the depth of foundation. There is always a doubt in the mind of the structural designer about the behaviour of a common raft under seismic forces supporting more than one block of buildings. The buildings can vibrate in different modes and create a pattern of forces on the foundation which are much different from normal static loads. The possibility of large amount of torsional stresses also exist. Complete division of very long buildings is also recommended on the ground that portions of such buildings may experience different seismic waves. No guidelines are available on this issue. The author had discussed this question with number of structural designers but no consensus existed. The author is of the view that in multiblock buildings having basements, unless technology to ensure water tight construction is available,joints need not be provided in the basement rafts. Wherever computer facilities of adequate size are available, raft should be analysed as a whole. On the other hand, where it cannot be done, a separate analysis can be carried out for portion of the raft taking 2 or 3 bays on either side of the joint and neglecting the other portions. The common portion can then be designed for these values or the individual block values whichever is higher. While detailing, reinforcement should be provided liberally at the joint.
4 Modulus of subgrade reaction. continue to provide for all methods of analysis starting from conventional rigid approach to most modem methods solved on electroniccomputer taking into account the soil structure interaction.Even the latest method assumes horizontal layers of soil having uniform soil properties in given area below the raft.SUMMARY OF STUDIES 10. The extent of variations that can be expected on the values of bending moments would be much high. For the same soil properties empirical methods given in the literature give different values so much so that value determined by one method is 6 to 7 times that determined by another method. reports of committees. Rigidity of raft can also not be determined exactly as it is affected by superstructure from h e top and the soil below.3 Soil pressure distribution under the raft is neither uniform non linearly varying. not possible.5 A designer can adopt any of the thickness and value of subgrade reaction with in the ranges considered in these studies. codes and proceedings of conferences. there is a value of raft rigidity which would make the soil pressure more or less uniform. There are however no exact methods available to determine the rigidity of soil or soil pile system. 10. (b) To select the method which is most suitable for his problem at hand. therefore. which is a measure of soil rigidity. It is quite common experience that the soil layers are rarely horizontal. This depends upon the relative rigidity of foundation and soil. give no guidelines to a practical designer which could enable him to (a) Know the extent by which he is farther away in his approach from what is actually happening and the amount of risk he is taking by opting for a particular method.1 Text books. There are methods available starting from empirical approximate ones on one hand to those taking into account the soil nature and soil properties below. while discussing merits and demerits. is a function of the nature and properties of the soil below and behaviour of structure above. . hand books. All these methods make number of assumptions. Variation in the bending moments for same value of rigidity of raft with varying values of modulus of subgrade reaction is also considerable.2 Rigidity of raft selected in the preliminary design has a tremendous effect on the stresses actually developing in the raft.These. Accurate determination of value of modulus of subgrade reaction is. 10. This situation does not exist. 10. however. and the properties of soil determined by bore holes varies to large extent from one bore hole to another. Study 1 shows that this variation could as much as tenfold. 10. Study 1 shows that this variation would be as'much as tenfold. For a known value of soil rigidity.
When next stage gets constructed imposing loads on the already constructed portion. Effom have been made to take this effect into account and quantify the same but without success. building also experiences live loads which at some stage may be even higher than the actual design live loads. 10. Study 2 has shown that bending moments determined in a raft of known thickness founded on a soil having a known value of soil modulus can vary approximately upto 20 times at some locations. it is not possible to take this effect into account. Their effect is to vary the column base moments and also increase in vertical load in some columns and decrease in others.whichact upon the superstructure and. .8 In a building having basement the retaining walls also affect the rigidity of the raft increasing the values of bending moment upto 70 per cent from the case in which this effect has been neglected. In any method of raft analysis.13 Though number of computer packages are available to take into account soil structure interaction. soil properties and the effect of horizontal loads.10 Study in para 8 which has been carried out for a structure having basement supported on piled raft with building blocks of varying height separated from each other by expansion joint indicate the same effects as in rafts supporting a single block. This also affects the stresses in the raft which may vary by 10 to 40 per cent. In actual practice this is never so.16 Designer should be liberal while providing reinforcement in rafts.6 In seismic areas or in high wind areas. no useful purpose can be sewed by using far more accurate computational procedures. This process is repeated on every stage and continues till the building is complete. Values obtained by combined footing approach are quite large and provide an envelope on the values which can be obtained by considering variations in rigidity of raft. neglecting the effect of raft rigidity seismic load and variation of soil modulus would generally be unsafe. 10. During this construction process. Since foundation is constructed in the very beginning. also on the foundation. Since soil properties can be determined only to some level of accuracy. This increase and decrease is a cyclic process which depends upon the direction in which the horizontal forces are acting. therefore. the foundation settlements and the stresses in the foundation also undergo the same cycles. 10.15 Design of raft foundation carried out by rigid conventional combined footing approach carried out for vertical loads alone would generally be safe.11 Study 3 and study in section 8 also show that the bending moment values obtained by conventional rigid combined footing approach are higher than those obtained by treating the raft as inverted floor.. friction or bearing piles. 10. 10. Buildings are constructed step by step and the portion already constructed gets loaded step by step and consequently undergo deformation. 10.12 In a piled raft the rigidity of pile soil system also depends upon the type of piles. 10. 10. are large in number. 10.7 Variation in stresses due to change in rigidity or soil modulus is smaller for the rafts which are symmetrical in plan and more uniform loaded. there are horizontal 1oads.9 Analysis of superstructure is done for the complete frame work when all the beams and columns are in position and loaded as a whole by design loads. it is this deformed structure which undergoes further deformation. whether conventional or modern. each of them adopt the approach which necessarily take into account soil properties. general value being twice.e.82 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS 10.14 Design of raft foundation carried out on flexible approach for vertical loads alone. This deformation is different from the one which the structure would have undergone had it been in one go. i. 10. In some cases the values obtained by treating the raft as inverted floor also provide an envelope but points where it is not so.
20 For normally adopted thickness of piled raft satisfying the punching shearconsiderations.the raft would be quite flexible and this could cause the differential loads on the piles. SUMMARY OF STUDIES 83 10. 10.19 Study 4 also shows that design of raft foundation as flexible usingconiceptof beam on elastic foundation with minimum values of BM as ~ ~ ~ for each span is generally safe. 1 1 0 10.17 Method suitable for adoption in design ofices for proportioning the load between piles and soil below the raft in a piled raft supporting large number of piles is not yet available.18 Raft of a given thickness may behave as rigid with poor soils and flexible with hard soils or rocks. may be even exceeding their safe load i I carrying capacity. . 1 10.I .
11. seismicity of location and its effect on the buildings. Architects take their own time to prepare the drawings and so do. (g) Infrastructure facilities available with the structural designer. soil consultants for their soil investigation report. (e) Cost of the building. (d) Nature of soil. its bearing capacity and extent of soil investigation carried out. It is the longest when it is done on computer taking into account all the factors affecting the actual raft behaviour.FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF METHOD OF ANALYSIS The following factors affect the choice of the structural designer to select a particular method of analysis of raft foundation and finally prepare structural drawings for the same: (a) Importance of the building.2 Time available for design may get restricted due to owner. (b) Time available for carrying out the design. However. size and purpose which they serve and details in this connection are available in the National Standards of each country. (f) Type of the building and loads imposed by the buildings. power plants or dealing with toxic substance have very high importance as slight damages may prove disproportionately dangerous for the society. . start pressurising the architect and engineer concerned to start construction imme&ately. It could also be due to structural designer who would have taken up number of jobs at the same time restricting the time which he can afford to spend upon design of raft foundations. Quite often owner may be spending any amount of time in deciding whether to undertake the construction of a building ornst but once having done so.1 Buildings have importance depending upon their occupancy. These buildings for our purpose can be called category one. for our purpose. It is shortest when the foundation design is done according to conventional combined footing approach. All other buildings can be considered as category two. Time taken in carrying out the design by different methods is different. 11. buildings having nuclear facility. For such building. (c) Permitted cost of analysis in design. and (h) Limitations in reinforcement detailing and fabrication. it is necessary to have detailed investigations carried out on the soil. All the pressure is then on the structural designer to give foundation design.
is also related to thequantity of the reinforcement already provided. While a calculator is enough for designing a raft by conventional rigid method. soil and their interaction. therefore.5 Cost of the building generally determines the amount which can be spent on analysis and design. then in very large segment to cater for minimum value of moment. rigidity of raft will have to be suitably increased so that uniform distribution of soil pressure below the raft could be obtained. their curtailmentsat very close intervals is not practicable. Additional reinforcement is then provided in selected areas to allow for additional bending moments. Spacing of the bar in the two layers have also to be corelated to each other for ease of fabrication and concreting. Detailed soil investigation not only cost considerable amount of money but also take time. Detailing of reinforcement is to be done keeping in view the basic requirements of overlap. these properties can be more accurately determined for either fully cohesionless or cohesive soil but the accuracy falls for the combination of the two. Accuracy of determining the soil properties depend upon the nature of the soil and the extent to which Soil Investigations have been camed out. the common practice is to provide first a uniformly distributed reinforcement. depend upon the accuracy with which the soil properties have been determined. 11. Small variation in magnitude of bending moments along the span (unless the spans are several times the anchorage length of the reinforcement bars) are of no practical value. The quantity of this additional reinforcement. It also determines theextent to which risk can be taken in thedesign.6 Type of building affects the accuracy with which its rigidity can be determined. Large diameter bars have considerable anchorage length and. spacing and ease of fabrication. Quite often.4 All flexible methods utilise the elastic properties of soil. In this case. kept within the building which will determine the extent to which the interruption in the functioning of the building can be accepted. This may not be possible in case loads imposed more or less match the bearing capacity. When the loads imposed on the soil are lower as compared to its bearing capacity. get restricted to some multiple of the spacings of the reinforcement already provided uniformly. if flexible method using raft as a plate is to be used. etc. Modulus of subgrade reaction or soil modulus at the present state of art cannot be determined accurately. 11. if not in the entire area.7 Infrastructure facilities relating to computer hardware and software available with the structural designer also affect the method of analysis selected. Quite often. certain discrete values of bending moments only are of consequence for the detailing requirement of reinforcement.. therefore. it may not be the cost of the building alone but also the indirect cost of equipment. and development length. flexible approach of raft design with variation in soil pressure distribution below the raft can be adopted.Inessence. large diameter bar are provided in more than one layer at top and bottom of the raft. for a medium size building. Thus. Moreover. this means that .8 It is also to be kept in view that stresses obtained from analysis are to be used for determining the reinforcement to be provided in the raft. 11. there is a tendency on the part of the owners to spend minimum on design.. Generally.3 Raft foundation analysis costs are minimum for conventional rigid combined footing approach and increase gradually as various factors are taken into account. While detailing the reinforcement in rafts of uniform thickness.FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF METHOD OF ANALYSIS 85 11. Structural design has to be carried out by the designer in a manner so that the cost of the design does not exceed the amount made available for the purpose. These would be maximum when the design is carried out on computer utilising flexible approach taking into account all the forces that the building is likely to be subjected to. rigidity of the raft. 11. Bending moments variation of magnitude smaller than that for which this quantity is required are of no consequence. the spacing at which this can be provided. While providing this additional reinforcement. 11. Accuracy of these methods. therefore. It also determines the loads it is going to impose on the soil. a personal computer (PC 486 with 120 MB hard disc and 4 MB RAM) would have been a minimum requirement.
. In above factors. capable of working out small variation at closer spacing are not of much practical use unless they give minimum and maximum values lower than those obtained by the method adopted.86 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS design using refined methods of analysis. it has been presumed that the structural designers is professionally qualified and has technical and professional competence to undertake the design according to all the methods available today.
flexible approach as explained in para 7. rigid method using combined footing approach can still be adopted without any risk of safety. If there is restriction on time available for carrying out the design and detailed soil investigations cannot be carried out. however. expansionjoints in the superstructureshould be continued through the raft. No compromise may be made due to limited time.2 In case of relatively small buildings of category 2 importance. methods based on flexible approach taking into account the soil structure interaction in full should be undertaken. The analysis should be repeated for possible values of soil properties and rigidity of superstructure which at the moment are not amenable for accurate determination. Laying down any strict guideline is.been stated in earlier chapters. very difficult. which are repeated several times so that the economy in foundation design becomes important and it is possible to get detailed soil investigations carried out.If . 12. conventional rigid method using combined footings approach would be satisfactory. on the basis of the experience and what has.4 Bending moments and shear forces become very high in conventional rigid combined footings approach as the length of the building increases. mentioned in para 11. . small in size.GUIDELINES The factors detailed in Chapter 11 in their various permutations and combinations in the light of the results of studies mentioned in Chapter 10 are to be considered in selecting a method of analysis suitable for adoption in the then existing circumstances. In such cases. detailed soil investigations should be got canied out and flexible approach taking into account the full soil structure interaction and possible forces likely to be imposed should be adopted.1 In case of buildings of highest importance.1 using the Winkler model for soil with minimum values of bending moment of ~ ~ ~would normally be safe. 12.5 If there are basements and raft has to be made continuous and load imposed by the building is lower than the bearing capacity of soil. permitted cost of design or infrastructure facility available with the designer. it is recommended that: 12.4. therefore. If. values of soil pressure determined in this analysis should be checked and analysis repeated with increased thickness till a more or less uniform soil pressure is achieved.3 In case of buildings of importance of category 2.1. However. 12. loads imposed are 1 1 0 such that these match with the bearing capacity. 12.
In'both the cases. this happens. In case of piled rafts 26 (a) conventional rigid combined footing approach can be used for small size rafts. it is to be treated as consisting of beams on elastic foundation in either direction. analysis is to be carried out for likely values of modulus of subgrade reaction.88 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS bearing capacity of soil is very high as compared to the loads imposed. the load coming on each pile is to be checked and ensured that it does not exceed the safe load canying capacity of the pile. the alternative available is either to change the type of piles with higher load canying capacity or to increase the rigidity of the raft so as to make the loads carried by each pile more or less uniform. It is also to be seen that the loads carried by each pile as determined in the analysis should not exceed the safe load canying capacity of the pile. if time and infrastructureavailable for canying out the design or the permitted cost for design are constraints and it is not possible to take into account the effect of seismicity or the 2 superstructure rigidity in the analysis. flexible approach taking into account the effect of seismic forces and other imposed loads would be appropriate. above approaches with minimum values of bending moment as W 110 L would give satisfactorjland safe results. however. In this case also. If raft is of uniform thickness. In case. it is to be treated as a plate supported on individual springs located at the point of each pile. . In case. (b) In other cases. If raft is beam and slab raft. 1 . the value of minimum bending moments can be decreased to WL2/12 from wL2/10.
ACI Committee 336. Handbook of Concrete Engineering. Teng Wayne C. 1974. Meyerhof. Determination of shear strength parameters of specimen tested in unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test without the measurement of pore water pressure. Oswald. Hans F. 4th Edition. Foundation of Structures.System and concepts foundation design Technical Committee 11. ACI 318. Peck. IS 2950 (Part I). Foundation Design and Construction. Foundation Design. 1962. Part XI. 1962. 1975. Seelye. Design of combined footings and mats. Bowles. 1965. 1973. Dunham. F. A. June 1974.REFERENCES Indian Standard Code of Practice of design and construction of raft foundation. 9th Edition. Foundation Engineering Handbook. ACI Journal October. Indian Standard Code of Practice of design and construction of raft foundation. Some recent foundation research and its application in Design. Method of determination of modulus of subgrade reaction (K Value) of soils in field. The structural engineer. Basements and adjoining structures. Clarence W. The Structural Engineer. 1954. IS : 2720 (Part XI). Elwyn E. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. Sawko and R. 1977. Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook. Winterkorn and Hsai .Yang Fang. Foundation Engineering. 1953. IS 2950 (Part I). 1966. Mark Fintel. Rafr Foundation. M. Schn A Puuff. . 2nd edition. Schild. Indian Standard Code of Practice of design and construction of raft foundation. Foundation Design and Practice. 1977. 1980.J. IS 9214. 1965.J. Cope. Schwciket. 1979. 2nd Edition. Reynold Charles E & Steedman James C. Some Aspects of Interactive Structural Design. IS 2950. 1956. Method of tests for soils. 198 1. Hansen. Le high University 1972 . Revalidated 1980. Structural Failure in Residential Buildings. Rogier. Foundation Analysis and Design. Thorburn.L. International conference on planning and design of tall buildings. 1981. 1971.L Baker. Joseph E. Tomiinson. Vol 111.
The Structural Engineer. Report of ACI committee 336 DOC NO. Bowles. Civil Engineering and Public Work Review. Foundation Design and Construction. Vol87 EM2. August 1984. Determination of shear strength parameters of soil from consolidated undrained triaxial test with measurement of pore water pressure (first version). (available in ACI manual 93) Foundation Analysis and Design. Sleedman 10th Edition. 1988. 1989. Soil Engineering in Theory and Practice. Kurian. Thirteenth international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Soil structure interaction. Delhi. Proceedings of eleventh international conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. London.A. 1993. Tomlinson. 1986. November 1964. The real behaviour of structures.S.H Davis. ASCE. "Building code requirement for reinforced concrete".J. J. 1992. 1986. 1988. Joseph E. Narosa Publishing House. I. Mark Fintel. IS : 2720 (Part XII) 1981. 1988. Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 1992. A. Foundation Engineering Handbook. 1986. H. Poulos and E. International Association of Bridge and StructuralEngineers. January 1994. 59. 4th Edition. ACI 318. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. University of Jodhpur. 5th Edition. Vol.1989 (Available in ACI manual 1993). "Geotechnique Today". San Francisco. 2nd Edition. Some practical examples". 1980. 1991. Alam Singh. Charles E.G. Calcutta. "Raft Analysis and Design. Part XII. 2nd Edition. Vesic. Jounurl Engineering Mechanics Division. December 182Oth. Hooper. Design of Foundation Systems. Handbook of Concrete Engineering. .RAFr FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Method of test for soils. Suggested Analysis and design procedure for combined footings and mats. N. Prof. "Bending of Beams Resting on Isotropic Elastic solids". ACI 336 2 R 88. UK. Reynold and James C.P. New Delhi. Hsai Yang Fang.M. April 1961. Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook. "Estimating the settlements of foundations on sand ALPAN". Institution of Structural Engineers. 2nd Edition. The Institution of Civil Engineers.
details are explained by 'Teng' in reference 7. but this could not be achieved fully and some eccentricity remained. Detailed soil investigations were got )The conducted and information in this connection is available in para 7. A. This case is covered by guidelines Para 12. * Design of reinforced concrete members in these examples has been carried out as per Indian standards.APPENDIX ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES* A.1 on page 55. The decision was therefore taken to have a raft foundation. Since there was no basement it was decided to continue the joint into the raft. Designers in other countries can follow the correspondingprovisions of their codes if those happen to be different.4 on page 42.l Example One: Conventional Rigid Method Combined Footing Approach  Details of this method have been given in para 7.1. . Details are already given in para 7. A. Central core of this building (Example 2 of study 1) is considered for illustration.5 kg per sq.1.5 metres.3 (page 3 .Efforts were made to make the centre of gravity of the load system to coincide with the centre of gravity of the raft by extending raft beyond the edge line in two directions.2 Joints in the Rafr The overall dimensions of the building are about 50 metres x 50 metres with 4 flats projecting from the central core and attached with it by very weak connection through the approach corridor. 1. A.cm. at a depth of 2. The recommended bearing capacity was 1. Though this method is recommended practically in every reference in Chapter 4.1.1. bore log is given in Fig. A.1 Exampk Selected This is an 8storeyed residential building consisting of 4 flats on each floor. Safe bearing capacity for individual footings was not enough to carry the loads of the structure. 7.1.2 on page 40.1 page 39.1 for the ground floor of the building. The location of the expansion joints has been marked in Fig.3. Superstructure for central core was analyzed on 3 dimensional building system computer program taking into account the earthquakeload by seismic coefficient method.2 page 87. The principles involved have also been explained therein. 7. Please see Fig. The vertical loads on columns of central core are shown in Fig. The structural system for the superstructure required expansion joint separating the 4 flats from the central core.1.
RAFT FOUNDAI'IONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS TYPICAL FLOOR. Consideration is also to be kept in view that column bars are able to have full development length in compression vertically embedded in raft so that load transfer can take place.3 Preliminaly Design. PLAN Fig. Effective Depth of raft slab = d . 1. Thickness of Raff The thickness of raft is worked out on the basis of punching shear as per calculations below. A.1. If raft is not of sufficient thickness for this consideration.. Checkfor Punching Stress: (All dimensions are in mm) Maximum column load = 2230 KN. ie. pedestals can be added.1 A.
2.925) = 1340.9) + (10.1. This will be sufficient for vertical compression development length of 25mm dia column bars. A. Upward load on this beam is obtained by multiplying the soil pressure with the width perpendicular to the team length.S. 456.1 .1.5875) + (6.4 Anuiysis a a Whole s I I 1 II I I According to the method raft is first to be analysed as a whole in the two direction modelling it as a large beam member with point loads from top.275) + (6.85641145.45 x 3.2. Punching Stress I Adopt overall depth of 1200 mm .1978) .66 x 8. Magnitude of loads is obtained by totalling all the columns loads in each row perpendicular to the length of the beam.117 .8564 m3 C.6. Further calculations are therefore required to be done considering this \ ' Calculation of eccentricity along Y Yaxis A.45) = 145. This leads to variation in pressure distribution below the raft. W~dth of this beam is varying and is also shown in the figure.66 x 8.3.G of Area = C Ai yi tZAi (about point B) Area = C Ai = (7.09 x 6.275 x 10.S : 456 .35) + (10. The equivalent beam obtained along the length of the raft is shown in Fig.5 x 2.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 93 Check for punching stress at critical section taken at d/2 from column face (C1. 33. 1.4.4. = (7.2 C. A.1.1(b) : I.G of Area from point B = 1340.35 x 15.1 A.117 m2 C A i y.09 x 6.4. The location of these point loads is along the centre llne of the columns. Calculations for the centre of gravity of the load and centre of gravity of the area are carried out as below and it is seen that there is eccentricity of 218 mm.5 x 2.1.1978) Perimeter of critical section =2(700+d+400+d)=2(1100+2d) Total resisting area Permissible shear stress = 2d(1100+24 = KsT (C1 30.
RAFT FOLINDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Fig.458 .5 x 2.G area (in KN/m2) .15 + 400 x 6.275 . 1 1 = 6.45t212+ 10.3 + 3931 x 8.83513010. 1.15 KNm Upward pressure = Load1Are.21 + 8.117 + 4121.27512 .ak Me y 1.458 m Eccentricity = 9.G of the load from Point B = 17831.353/12 + 7.09 x 6.45 x 6.76 m4 P.e. A.0 x 0.11 + 781.2.453112+ 6.18 + 1421.36 + 160.76 = 129.66 x 8..9 + 10. 1 = 18852l145.9.a f My 1.24 .G of Load = CPi yi/C Pi (About Point B) Z Pi = 18852 KN = Total Load C Pi yi = 2386 x 2.575 + 6951 x 14.218 = 4121.2 + 220 x 3.15 x 7.6 + 2415 x 6. (8.3512 + 5.2 C.80 = 3010.485)2 = 136.425 + 2549 x 8.1 +503.6 K N / at point A.218 m Moment = Me = Load x eccentricity = 18852. i.6.35 (2.375 = 178310.66 x 8. extreme left ~ ~ Pressure at any point on the beam at a distance y form C. = Load1Are.72 = 140.09 x (9.2 = 9.043/1885..79)2 + 7.43 KNm C.24 = 0.5 x 2.2753112+ 10.
117+ 4121.) = 188521145.8663 + 1344.1. 1.4.12221)/2 x 6.4.1728.76) = 129.91 + 1.1742.1.2 and Table A.0 KNm Moment : At point M = A.7 .1 A.6283)12 x 2.20 KNm /m for a width of 6.88955 + 714.39 KNrnIm for a width of 6.1.1366.275 + (767.2 . A.1. A. Check Total Load = (1054.3233 + 11622.15 x ~13016. + Myll.2189 + 4779.12.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Fig.7534 + 1030.09 m Moment at point L = 2386 x 0.2 Pressure from this equation and consequent loading at each point of columns and mid point of the span is calculated and shown in Table A.1219)12 x 8.14.12 A.g2/6 = 1670.56 KNm or .4879 = 18852.12.35 + (1464.37 y A.4.3036.3.17 .12 x 2) x 2.4.1.3.l.79 = .1.(738.09 m . A.4.224.12.1.97 KNm or .45 = 2450.11 A.29 + 714.286. Moments are then calculated by simple statics using data in Fig.l and Fig.3 .76 = .029 Say 18852 KN Moment: Taking top tension as positive Moment : At point N = 0.3 Pressure load diagram for the idealised beam (KNlm) o = (CPJCA.1.
5 + 60..38 754.15227.452 = 10140.12221)/6 x 6.325..675 + 220 x 1.835171 + 5. .24 A1415 .09* 6.25 .444 KNm .155 = 3780.88492 125..0.30) + 400 x 0.09 6..28 Moment at point K = 2386x 1.15~ = 9424.664829 .09 Loading in KN/m fw X a) 1054.0 + 724.412221)/6 x 6.10 + 220.12) x 3.l Point A Y + 7.121767.63 1.. .1983.5.3675.RAFT FOUNDAT1ONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS Table A.15 .79363 126.66 10.13 + 2 x 714.6953 KNm or ..09 Moment of H = 2386.94 1344.0 .0 .12221)/6 x 6.(767.66 10.6796 123.09 6.76032 + 2 x 714.09 m Moment of Point G = 2386 (4.09 6.115 = .7 + 561.939829 .26145 W d h of slab (w) it in metres 7.(744.12 B C D E F G H I J K L M N + 2.63915 + 2 x 714.3048 KNm or 620.09 6.72993 KNmlm for a width of 6.039829 .4 .3843..85) + 2415..1351.l.76 744.4.0 + 362.25) + 220 (2. .2 A141.0.6. .5 + 627.44 1375.639829 .93437 122.(765.10264 KNmIm for a width of 6.6 + 594.4692.8752 = 6382.66 10.0 (0.55 + 280.66 10.3.7.26 A141.235171 .814829 .485171 + 5.444 = .2.12 1372.221.789829 .0 x 2.13828.239829 *At this section raft has two w d h .96848 128.55 .99895 128.93 KNm or .29 732..5 .364829 .09 m.70 + 2415 x 0.2.33 = .5 7.27 A141.38875 + 20 x 71.339829 .46 714.089829 .950) + 220 x 2.I99 KNmIm for a width of 6.66* 10.09 6.275 .73971 K N d m for a width of 6.09 6. Moment at l = 2386 (3.18914 121.135171 o (In KN/MZ) Pressure 140.12221)/6 x 4..62831 1464.8646.7 1417.4151 KNm or .7534 1030.63 765.8663 1459.09 m Moment at point J = 2386 x 2.14519.4.4171 136.13 738.88 766.63379 137.5 110.7453 = .0 x 4.93802 132.(754.23098 120.(766.88956 + 2 x 714. its A141.15 .09024 125.19.30~ = 9782.62/6 = 3340.27282 117.66 16.
12877 K N d m for width of 10.56283)' x 208.275/2 + 2.55 + 0.35 (1 1.25* .13 or .47017 KNmIm for width of 10.701 + 238.618793 = .722 .15 )1(105.14 A.8663 + 1417.1926 = .75 .4.795311 + 3250) = .88955714.15~ = 403 15.1.5047.1030.6921 KNm or .78837 KNmlm for width of 10.125 = 14852.15 + 5. 8 2 5 +2415x2.2082.1219 x 8.1.13 A.70 + 21666.581712 x 2.603.35~ = .701 = 63794.4513 + 10.15 + 5.625 ) .45 [6.5 m = .275 +400x2.2739 KNm or 154.15 +5.4.12.15 + 5..450 + 18767.66 m Moment at Point A = 714.12.55 + 0.7593)16 x 0.(2 x 1464.77 = 4780.4.70]+241.701 + 22 [2.125 + 0.846 . .4.6283 x2.4.875 + 2964.66 m width Moment at point E (Taking moment from L. = 20157. The bending moment diagram for M for raft as a whole is shown in Fig.89.27 136.66 m Moment at point B = .8663 + 1459.S) = 6951.52 118 K N d m for width of 6.1288)16 x 6.80+2.5 + 5494.12.12.8663.17959.40 + 2.1.24665.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES A.7652.275 [8.(2085.359.09 m or .125 + 850 .1219y2 x 8.444)16 x 3.1795311 + 0.1.6283)16 x 2.4.35 ( 2 x 1054.2215.9037 K N d m for width of 10.62366 or .09.8663 + 1375.906 .72 + 143587148 = + 0.80 + 2.35 + 6.35 (1.5 106 K N d m for 10.5 + 35491.822.18172157. A.125 + 0.991 = 0.701 +3931 [0.344.80 + 2.75.27513 + 2.4.385.4.9 A.628 X 2.12.70] +40[21.021 2845.1.12221 ~ 6 .36436 KNmIm for width of 7.924 2552.6233y2 [2.12 A.7534 + 1030.80 + 2.2890.98732 KNmlm for a width of 10.12221)12~6.2327 KNm or . .352 = .80 + 2.00 This check is necessary to see that over all calculations are correct.10853.[1464.11 A.351 .15+2.15 + 4310.6 r1.143574.25 +0.125+0.381 7)12 x 2.50 + 34003.1.351 .66 m Moment of Point D = 6951 x 290 .784 .H.1.7534 + 1030.[767.35/3] + 6951 x 2.10 A.5381712 = .47534 + 103.271.70 + 2549 [5.1.3747.4512+ 10.8 .3837.12.1030.15 + 2.2640.66 m Moment at point F =2386x6.8421 = 1651. 4 5 (6.802.5 [0.1344.66 Moment at point C = .80+2.35 [2.(2 x 1464.(2 x 1464.85 + 1061.225 + 2 2 0 ~ 4 .322.(2 x 1054.473.35) = .Ox 5.35/2] [1054.4648 KNm or .6251 .9 .1344.275 [8.15 + 2.0 + 26383.448.15+5.
1. A. A.The large beam member is shown in Fig.1.1. A.1.4. Fig.14 Similar calculation are carried out for raft as a whole in short direction for MIT. 1. A. A.5 Idealised beam for raft as a whole in short direction .4 Bending moment M. Loading diagram is shown in Fig. for raft as a whole A.1. Bending moment diagram is shown in Fig.5 eccentricity in this direction is found to be 31mm only.98 RAFTFOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS Fig.6.7.
ve = .APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 2 1 . + ve. 1.. *ru a  'Q LO ! 2 \2 g$g 4 a . 1. Maximum +ve = 154.66 m .ve = . Minimum .416. Min.1.ve.9922 KNm M. Min. (U N ( U N ( U a .T raft as a whole short direction (Top tension as +ve) A. . and M.9037 KNm for width 10.9 $ rn 9 0 g OD 0 bb Z Z Z g $ " * a.ve = .221. 2 s 4 1 Fig. . " " ma. A. Average .6 Pressure loading diagram for idealised beam for raft on a whole in short direction EXAMPLE 2 Fig. LO . a ! 0 (r I 8 *a. Max .occurs only at one point M.ve and average ve values for M. Minimum +ve insignificant M. A.7 Bending moment diagram M. for raft as a whole are calculated and shown below for proper appreciation M..lo26 KNm M.15 Final result for raft as a whole Max + ve. g 6 m m v .631 . Maximum . Average + ve.4.4559 KNm .
Calculations for strip no. 9 respectively.16 . and strip no.with their corresponding width in respect of strips are shown in Figures A.37.3 C.1. 7.75 KNm/m M. 1 for My.. These values are decreased by 30% to allow for effect of continuity with other strips. with reference to footing area C. page 57.:. Normally strips are taken from centre line to centre line of bay.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS M. determined.58 x 2 + 5. 8 to behave as an independent part and. Such exceptions are evident in this figure. but sometimes this rule cannot be followed and a judgement has to be made taking column locations into account.1.50 I 1.1 Strip No. 1 (see Fig A .1.6.1.8 Strip No. Each strip is considered as a combined footing carrying the loads from columns in that strip.6.1. eccentricity of column loads C..17 . There is possibility of strip no. min +ve value = 14. 1 to strip no.12. I ..10.275 x 1.1. 7 .21 KNMlm M.G.1. 1. I .40 KnmJm M. A.. avg ve value = .58 I 1 7..58 Fig. 9 for M. A.70 K N d m M.6. therefore. this combination is also idealised on a large beam and is shown in Fig.5 Division of Rafi into Strips This raft is divided into strips in both the directions as shown in Fig.for strip no. of the area from point K = CAI Xi /Ai 1. 1. Analysis of Rafi Stripswise for M.G.536 m2 A. ~ ) A.6.6.1 Total load on beam = C Pi = 6951 KN A. 6 .1. A. Calculations for each strip or combination of strip is carried out in the same manner as done for raft as a whole without reference to other strips.87...and Myy Large beam members. avg +ve value = 51.1.30 K N d m .8 to A. BMS worked out by simple statics. max +ve value = 78. 1 Myy .2 Area of beam = 3. A.1.50 = 52. are shown below : A.625 x 7. min ve value = .G.max ve value = ..41 KNm/m M.
9 Strip No.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Fig. 1. A.33656 m from point K . 1.10 Strip No. 3 MD = 5. 2 M?. Fig. A.
RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS
Fig. A. 1.1 1 Strip No. 4 Myy
Fig. A.1.12 StripNo. 5 M ,
A.1.6.1.5 A.1.6.1.6
Eccentricity = 5.336  5.33 = 0.006 m Moment due to eccentricity Me = P, x e Me = 6951.0 x 0.0065645 = 4562 KNm
I
APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
fe
Fig. A.1.13 Strip No. 6 M ,
Z Y
Y
Z
t
A.1.6.1.7
Fig. A.1.14 Strip No. 7 M ,
I,=
A.1.6.1.8
3.275 x (1.58)'/12 + 3.275 x 1.58 x 4.54 + 5.625 x (7.50)~ + 5.625 x 7.5 x 0 + 3.275 I12 x (1.58)~/12+ 3.275 x 1.58 x 4.54 = 246.831 3 m4 Pressure at any point on the beam at a distance y from C.G. of the area in K N / ~For. pressure ~ calculations see table A. 1.2.
RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Fig. A. 1 .I 5 Strip No.8 Mu
Fig. A.1.16 Strip NO.9 Mu
I APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Fig. ~ = [Iq . A. 7.1. 1. 6.17 Strip No.1.18 Pressure loading diagram of idealised beam for strip No.] A.18 p c i Me Y Fig.6.9 Pressure loading diagram is given in Fig A. 1 . 1. A. and 8 combined 11 2.1.
2 1 0.43 x 0.02 KNm or 90.41 KNm/m for a width of 5.33 x 0.73 KNm or 97.6.65 m .97 KNm/m for a width of 3.35.7975 KNm or .6.275 m Moments reduced by 30 % = .1.6.74)~)/2+ (0.1.58 X 0.63 K N d m Moment at point H = 1143 x 1.18 KNm lm Reduced by 30% = 52.94112 = 549.5g216 = 422.2 r Point a ( K N / ~ ~ ) Width of strip ( W ) in m.275 m Moment for a width of 5.81 KNm or 68.1.956 x 1.12 A.1.1.65 m Moments reduced by 36% = 384.13 A.58 x 1.625 m = 75.73 KNrnJm for a width of 5.1.08 x 1.44792 x (0.08 x 1.6.0.1.740.389 K N d m for a width of 3.11 Moments Taking top tension as positive Moment at point K = 0.1. .25.82.1.255 .0 KNm Table A.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS A.275 meter Moments at point I = 1143 x 0. A.17 K N d m for a width of 3.84 .08263 x (0.14 Moment at point J = .(430.956 X 1.275 m Moments reduced by 30 % = 296.430.117. ~ 8 ~ .12 K N d m for a width of 3.205 .415~12 0.89 KNm or 129.458 KNm or . Pressure Loading in KN/m (0 x w ) *Smaller width of sectionnargerwidth of section.430.415~16 .74)~)16 = .
18 or 7.578 x 1.275 m Moment reduced by 30 %= .0.08263 x 1.288.1.65 m Moment reduced by 30% = I 11.435.1.275 m .5 1 .76 K N d m Moment reduced by 30% = 15.6.29 K N d m for a width of 5.0512 .APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 107 A.366 K N d m for a width of 3.17 or 21 1.1.1.16 or 28.58213 = 128.09563 x 1.435.435.578 x 1.88.09 KNmIm for a width of 3.67)'16 = 159.625 m Moment at Point D = 1564 x 1.17 KNm A.67)')12 .1.79 .956 x 1.6.76 KNm A.14 KNm A.66 KNmIm for a width of 3.625 m Moment at Point C = 1564 x 0.6.430.58 x 2.1.42 KNm or 78.04 x l213 = 629.65 m Moment reduced by 30 % = 832.747.48 K N d m for a width of 5.95 KNm or .15 Moment at Point G = 1 143 x 2.625 m Moment at point E = 42.09 K N d m for a width of 3.33409 x (I .46 .19 A.275 m Moment reduced by 30 %= 89.1.85 KNdn'i for a.58 x 1.62 KNm or 27.58)12 x 2.1.03 K N d m fcr a width of 5.275 m Moment for a width of 5.625 m Moment at point F A.(0.1.1.60 K N d m for a width of 5.0.(740.03 KNm or 39.6.89 KNmIm for the width of 5.578 x 1.width of 5.6.625 m Moment reduced by 30% = 29.956 x 1.65 m = 22.6.93 KNrnIm Moment at Point B = .15~12 0.696 x 1.80 KNmIm for a width of 5.50 KNm or .1.1.61.20 or 111.93 KNm or 5.58212.1.201.43 .32 K N d m for a width of 5.39 KNm or 19.1966667 .43 .58 x 2.625 m Moment reduced by 30 %= 440.09 x 1212.698 KNm or 148.1.15~13 = .73616 x ( I .
7 .Xi = 1143 x 2.41+ 1143~9.2753112) + (2.897L20. 1.618 = 6. 3 3 .7 4 0 .6182 m2 C.X/cPi ZP.882) + (2.4. 5 ~ 5 .897 CAi Xi ICA.71 x 2.578~ 1.4287 m Moment due to eccentvicity Me= Pi x e = 2309 x 0.4 3 0 .58~16 .71 x 4.275 x 6.88 KNm 1.29 x 8.15 +2230x4.62887 m from point F Eccentricity (e) = 6.275 x 2. 1.G of the area from point F = CA.05759 . I a .58X9. of the area (in KNlm2 ) These values for this strip are shown in Table A.71 x 2.G.29 x 8.16) Strip No 9 MIX Total load on the beam = 2309. 0 8 D .4299~) = 152. = 12997.05759 m from point F C.956x 1.35212+ 2.112309 = 5. 7 9 6 ~ 7 .RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Table A. CA.4287 = 989.0 KN = CPi Area of the beam = (8. Xi ICA. = 124.179 m4 Pressure at any point on the beam at a distance y from C.275 x 0.01 +2014x7.92435. 5 ~ 4 .5 = 12997.1. = 0. F = CP.582L2~. 9 5 6 ~ 1.3 (See Fig A.353112) + (2.G.7 1) = 20.29) + (2. 0 8 ~5 8 ~ 9 .5. of load from pt.7 + 1166 x 8.X. 3 3 ~ 7 .4875 = 124. = (0.62887 = 0.6OD = 0.0 .29 x 8.35 x 0.0 Final Reduced moments are shown in Table A. 8 7 .1.35 x 0.13 Final Reduced Moments Point Moment (KNm)for strip as a whole Moment (KNm/m)permetre width of strip 1 Moment at Point A = 1564x 1.1 KNm ZPi Xi ICP.
1.1.4.11 Moment at point F = 0.29 2.21 x 0.10 D E 1 * Larger width at section lsmaller width at section Fig.283.767 KNm or = .29 10.71 m Moment for a width of 2.389.8 1 KNm or = .71m Moment reduced by 30% = .2. A.10 Moments taking top tension as +ve A.272.2.357 3.403.1.35~13) 12) = .(96.29 m .(10.27 306.29 m = .286.46 311.87.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 109 Table A.9112) .07 263.0 KNm A.457 3.6. A1.35 x 1.119.2.6.19 Pressure diagram for the idealised beam.96 133.2.125.352/2) + (10.29 2.12 Moment at point E = . A.959 K N d m for a width of 0.567 .170.27 96.707 1 14.1.46 x 0.2.35 x 1.82 136.244 KNmlm ~ o m e nreduced by 30% = .19 K n d m for a width of 2.(96.1.9 The pressure loading diagram for the idealised beam is (in ICIV/m2 ) is shown in Fig.63 x 2.200.(5.6. 1.525) .63 x 2.35213) = .35~ .417 220.4 Point A Y .853 x 2. Strip No.74 KNm or .29 2.29 2.442 CJ in KN/~* W d h of strip ( w ) in m it 2.19.13 K N d m for a width of 2.1.6.10 188.7 1* ' Loading in K N m h ( 0 x w) 82.63 B C 0.2.81 KNm or .67 K N d m t A. 9 A.8 x 2.68196.(306.77 KNrn/m for a width of 0.6.13 Moment at point D = .29 m Moment reduced by 30% = .
110 A. Similarly design value of M can also be selected and reinforcement provided.6.42 x 2.0 0.6.10.45 .3 Similar analysis is canied out for all the remaining strips A.1.26 x~8. This value becomes 1337 in strip no 8 under columns F3.23 KNm or .1.6.5. .1. M if 154.84D = 0.46 KNrn or .188.025~12 74.2.7 Overall Bending Moments Values of Bending Moments M and M obtained from analysis of raft as a whole and strips are shown on .85 x 5.29 m Moment reduced by 30% = .6.2.314.188.0 KNrn Final Moments are shown in Table A.137.(188. ~ . 1.125 + 1143 x 7.6.32 KNdm for a width of 2.90 .85 x 2.123.65 x 2.96.M.29 m Moment reduced by 30% = 48 1.0 A.17 Moment at point C = 1166 x 2.417 x 5. .16 A.55 KNm or 300. the raft plans in Fig.35 x 9.125~12 3 1.449. Normally 50% reinforcement is provided on the other face.24 KNdm for a width of 2.1.20 and A.35 x 9.1. 8. This will correspond to 300 KN metre and will be sufficient to care of positive M . 1.15 A.63 x 2.1. .ve M is .29 m Moment at point B = .5 KN metre per metre width at the centre of columns in grid line 1 and 2 with higher values of 280 and 210 in ship nos.M. Thus in the long direction reinforcement at bottom of raft corresponding to B.1. Maximum .125~16) + = .025~16 = 687.29 m ~ o m e nat point A t = 1166 x 2. 5 and 9 respectively.21 respectively.5 Point Total strip Moment KNm Per unit width Moment K N d m A 0.14 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS A. A.2752/3 5 ~ . It would be seen from that figures that Maximum + ve B.196.2. value of 600 KN metre can be provided with additional bars under column F3 in the width of strip no.17 KNmIm for a width of 2.17 KNrn for a width of 2.925 .29 KNm or = 210.603 KNm per metre width below columns in grid line 5 for raft as a whole.1. . . Table A.2.42 x 8 . .
: a a  W m 0 " E s: " . l . 9 0 a " n a >."S : " E . 0 0 m u .  O " b : t .g: > .cs LC. .APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ( F X 9 . m n 2: l .i 2 2 Y g ' s2 g A .! & 8:u.. 0 \ .:gzx . a .sc 0 9 C LC. .. 2 3 3 a..3 w a 3 ~ > a a . 5 1 .3 2 J m 0 V o m C !: e o ! \ u .$ B " 4. a 3 .I I l  . Q) t .! 5 . s e s .
2 on page 22. 1. i. This however requires large amount of data about the soil properties and very large computational effort. is a simplification .112 RAFT FOUNDATIONSOESIGNAND ANALYSIS U RAFT SLAB THICKNESS = 1200MM 0 MOMENT VALUES AT SMALLER WIDTH OF SECTION 0 MOMENT VALUES AT LARGER WIDTH OF SECTION ALL VALUES ARE I N KNM PER M WIDTH Fig. 'Winkler's model.e.. at Flexible approach is explained in para 5. Ideally the raft should be designed as flexible plate supported on elastic foundation taking soil as a continuum. Concept of raft supported on elastic springs with a spring constant determined using coefficient of subgrade reaction.Beam on Elastic Foundation . A. Values of individual strips reduced by 30%.21 Values of Myy. [ I values for faft as a whole A 2 Example 2: Flexible R f .
these are determined by treating each beam supported on suitably located springs having spring constant determined on the basis of modulus of subgrade reaction and contributing area of raft for the spring. tI of this method.2. This case is covered by para 12. these analysis are required to be repeated for varying values of modulus of subgrade reaction.1 Example Selected This is an eight storeyed office building with a basement having six blocks of varying height. i.2.e. The recom~ ~ mended bearing capacity was 130 KN per sq.4. A value of 11000 K N / was suggested for modulus of subgrade reaction. A. A. Joints r e q u i ~ d be provided in superstructure to take into to account the thermal and seismic effects are shown in this plan. If this raft was analysed by rigid method the bending moments will become very large and practically unmanageable.1. m.5 metres.5 of the guidelines.4 and 7.1 Plan with position of expansionjoint . For obtaining accurate results..2. first analysing the raft as a wholein both the directions by converting into a laige beam to give lower bound values and then analysing individual smps or combination of smps in both the directions to give upper bound values is extended to flexible approach with the modification that instead of determining the bending moment in each beam by simple statics. designing the raft as per the values of bending moment determined in this analysis with a minimum valueof w12/10would normally give satisfactory safe design. t A.I APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES I .1 on page 63. When it is not possible to take such an exercise.2 Joints in the Rajl A plan of the building is shown in Fig. The basic principles used in rigid method. The example is already explained in para 7. at a depth of 3.2. This is a long building (length being about 80 metres) which isdivided into 15 spans. This is further simplified when instead of analysing the raft as a plate it is analysed as a combination of beams on elastic foundation. i rI i I 1i / A. Since the building has a basement under all the I EXPANSION JOINT I I EXPANSION Iv I/4INT TTT I '1 aoJe I (ALL DIMENSIUNS ARE IN M> Fig.
.95 = 1943 m2 = 22530011943 = 115.e. = 0.4. The building size is so large thatanalysing the entire building as a plate would require very large computational effort.07 (Table D.em = 5.714 . However for the purpose of this example the method as indicated in para A. i.9965 KNm or.2.01 14. = Short span of the panel = 5.. Effective span lx. SP 16 : 1980) Assuming a balanced section Say overall depth of slab = 400 mm .Fig A.95 = 116 K N / ~ ' Assume a bearing pressure of 120 K N / (= w) ~ ~ A./bd2= 2. = ai w l.1 Calculation o bearing pressure f Total load on the raft (summation of all column loads) Total area of the raft Bearing pressure = 225300 KN = 80.03 = 1942.1..714 m 1 = Long span of the panel = 7.. = 6.2.01 m 1. page 10 . Raft for the eight storeyed portion is shown in Fig. = factored load per unit area.1.2.=415 ~ / m ' ~.2(A) I.01 m .4. = 7.2.714)' = 183. A.2.4. w. raft under 8 storeyed portion is treated separately from the raft under two storeyed portion.2.275 (< 2 .5 x 120 = 180 K N / ~ ~ M.714 m lJf. In this case design was done utilising beam and slab construction with beams projecting upward.2 above is adopted.855 x 24.4 Determinution of Preliminary Sizes A3. A. Loads on each column are also shown in this figure on right hand side of column number. F&= 15 ~/m'andf.714 = 1. This could be done as subsoil water level was low and some earlier constructed building in the same vicinity having joints in the basement had given satisfactory performance.m2 (cI 36. slab is to be designed as a two way slab) : Negative moment per unit width at continuous edge = M.. For the purpose of design..0 = 4.36 .1.5 x w = 1. = 1.35 .046 x 180 x (4.01 .0 = 6. A..2 Determination o depth of slab f Assume width of beam as 1000 mm in both the directions Consider the panel defined by nodes 30 .114 RAFr FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS blocks expansion joints were not extended into the raft in eight storeyed portion. Joints between two storeyed and eight storeyed were extended into the raft and treated properly.3 1 ..3 o p e of Raftto be adopted The raft could be slab of uniform thickness or a beam and slab construction./1. Details of the design are already mentioned in para 7..2 table 22 IS 456 : 1978) .
SLAB THICKNESS =400mm BEAMS ALONG XX = I 0 0 0 X1200 mm BEAMS ALONG YY = I 0 0 0 X800 mm mA STRIPS SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS ( A L L D I M E N S I O N S A R E I N MM & COLUMN L O A D S I N KN) Fig.2 Raft foundation .2. A.
Fig A..2. . A.2.40 .2(A) A.m2)I6 where w = 120 KN/m2 bearing pressure I = short dimension of the panel defined by nodes 30 .36 .39 . .m2)/6 .2(A) . .4. = Longer dimension of the panel m = I#.2. A.2./l.35 .2(A) long direction) Load per metre length on the beam from bearing area (a) . Load perm length from bearing area marked (b) in Fig. I.3 Transverse beam Bending moment in beam K12 . w' (a) = w1.(3 .31 . A.2(A) assuming the raft as an inverted beam slab system.(3 . m = l. wherew = 120 ~ ~ lbearing pressure r n ~ 1 = short dimension of the panel defined by nodes 35 .36 . A..= w1..2(A) wjcb.L12 (see Fig.RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS 1 SLAB THICKNESS = 4 0 0 m m BEAMS ALONG XX = I 0 0 0 X 1 2 0 b n BEAMS ALONG YY = I 0 0 0 XBOOln (ALL DIMENSIONS ARE I N M 8 COLUMN LOADS I N KN) M Fig. 1 = Longer dimension of the panel .shown shaded in Fig.2..2.
28 KNIm where w = 120 KN/m2 1 = Shorter dimension of panel defined by nodes 35 .07 Nlmm (Table D. wT = w'(.257 m (Assuming 1 metre as width of beam) Bending moment = wT 12110 = 420. 63) Load per m length on beam from bearing area marked (c) (shown shaded in Fig.41 .01 .91 + 256.2.25713 = 210. A.8 KNm Factored moment = 1.1.L13 (Beam No.01 m (Assuming 1 metre as width of beam) Bending moment = wT12110 = 523.07 A.2.2. = Shorter dimension of panel defined by nodes 36 .21 lo6 = 743 mm Say overall depth 800 mm 1 O x 2.5 x 1890 = 2835 x lo6 Nmm Assuming a balance section (where factored moment = Mulim For fck = 15 ~ l r n m ~ = 415 ~ l m m ~ and& ~ ~ ~= 2.40 .56 KNlm Effective span of beam = clear span = 1 = 5.01)~110 = 1889.~ ~ ~ l b d Page 10.21 KNm Assuming the width of the beam as 1000 mm d= Ij 143.40 Total load on beam.29 = 523.07 OO .0 = 6.1.56 x (4.28 KN/m where w = 120 IW/rn2 1.2 x (6.O = 4. SP 16:1980) Assuming the width of the beam as 1000 mrn d =  4 2835 lo6 = 1170rnm say overall 1200 rnm loo0 x 2.28 x 2 = 420.14 KNm Factored bending moment = 1.I APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Total load on beam = w'(~)+ w'(~) = WT = 266. + w'(& = 210. A.37 .5 x 762.257 .2 KNIm Effective span of beam = clear span = 1 = 7.2 (A) w'(~) = w1/3 = 120 x 5.2 (A)) w'(c) = wlJ3 = 120 x 5.4 Longitudinal Beam Bending moment for beam L12 .4.257)2110 = 762.25713 = 210.39 .. Load per metre length from bearing area marked (d) in Fig.14 = 1143.36 .
2 (A).2.968 N / I T ~ ~ Punching stress < Permissible stress m= 6 which is less than 1. Distance of N.3.A.IS 456: 1978) Maximum column load = 4707 KN Factored load = 1. = (0.5+pc) : PC = 6101610 = 1 K. As per above calculation raft therefore consists of beam and slab construction with 1000 mm x 1200 mm beam in the transverse direction and 1000 mm x 800 m m beams in the longitudinal direction with a slab thickness of 400 mm.5 KN Critical area resisting punching = 4 (610 + 4 x d Permissible punching stress = K. = 1.3.2.5 (> 1) : adopt K.1 IS : 456 . = 1 .5 Checkfor punching shear The raft has beam and slab construction with columns located at intersection.25 .2. Calculations for this conversion are as under.Assuming provision of a pedestal 2300 x 2300 mm. fd = characteristic strength of concrete T = 0.257 m say 0. Under each column a pedestal is provided with its top at 1200 mm level and projecting 650 mm on both sides of the beam as shown in Fig. the column can be considered to be supported on a slab of uniform thickness.6.2.A = &Ii. If a punching shear calculation is made to check the pedestal punching through itself it would be found to be safe.5 x 4707 = 7060.4.2 m depth of the pedestal already provided. 0.A from A . A. T = 0.1978) K. T .A .4.118 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS A3.26 m Moment of inertia a b u t N.1 (b) . A. This beam rectangular in cross section has the same width and rigidity as whole of the raft. (Clause 30. Analysis as a Whole in Long Dirkction The raft is converted into a large beam as shown in Fig. In this pedestal column size = 610 x 610 mm Perimeter of critical sections = 4 x (610 + 4 (As per clause 33. &Ii Xi (Refer cross section) = 0.5.25 .
a . 3 @ 11 N ? % ru ro N O '4 N '4 ' .! u z H v . + 0 U . a a N m N  a? a A 'em 4 N +a r !I I  2 (4 a V) z z .APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES +9 L W r m 3 z IY m r I I 1 w w A I : 'rO '4 :4 .
e.2.1 Table showing values of Shear Force.. The problem is solved on electronic computer utilising a finite element approach. Bending Moment and Soil Pressure for the raft as a whole in long direction Node 1 Shear Force in KN Moments KNm Soil Pressure K N / ~ * 1 Lefi Right . the strip of the raft being analysed or raft as a whole. Calculation. The various point loads on this beam are sum of all column loads in the line perpendicular to the length of the beam at that point.120 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS Equivalent beam with same width and I would have depth .2. i. of spring constant are indicated below the figure.1. Table A. I Thus equivalent beam is 0. Springs are also located at the two extreme ends. Portion of beam between the nodes is treated as a finite beam element and the.569 m deep and 24. Bending moment. For Bending moment only values are indicated at each node. Springs have been provided under each column and also at the mid point of span.4. This computer programme is such that values of SF and BM given are per metre width of beam. shear force and pressure diagrams are also drawn in Fig. These are shown in table A.03 m wide. More number of springs can be provided but that much more of calculations get involved. Bending moment values under columns and mid point of span are enough. It would be seen that spring constant at the end of the raft are doubled as recommended by Bowles.2. This is done to allow for the end effect expected in such rafts.values of bending moment shear force and pressure at each node are obtained. A.
1 2.381 107.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 121 Moments KNm Node Shear Force in KN Soil Pressure K N / ~ ' 106.899 145.660 .30.178 Right 262.731 160.622 101.9 I 4 9 I 1 ~ 1 n P W lh I LtO ua9 EOIL m 9 337.163. 2 1 3 4 1 5 0 I  ll6a .257.9 m 3lu unz till I m7.5.337. A.803 .919 .611 11 1.853 204.338 327.5.295 13.599 .065 .364 .895 273.30.040 138.190 .860 .001 ' 174.966 191.001 346.803 .410 Left 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 .317.377 105.386.848 106.000 lTaP 1 .55 1 .371 133.908 2 10.926 .843 196.186 .233 13.123 10.4 Force diagram for raft on a whole (Longer direction) .102 0.322 10.364 392.799 99.731 .312 98.132.338 .947 126.16 6 1 7  SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM ( I N KN> I7 n5 la4i lOSB 174.256.349 134.272.360.1 10.980 116.640 25.895 .273.660 265.21 0 0.932 25.468 .4 I " l6aa BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM ( I N KNM) S O I L PRESSURE DIAGRAM ( I N KN/Sq.M) Fig.69 1 21 8.410 0.270.204.874 .053 .12.107.2.549 .
6 Analysis as a Whole in the Short Direction RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS The equivalent beam in the short direction with same rigidity and width with calculation for spring constant and the result obtained are shown in Fig. Distance of N. would have depth Thus equivalent beam is of cross section 0. MEMBER NO. Fig.5 and Table A./ Ui .A = U. A.2. (NOTE) .2 respectively. (Refer cross section) Moment of inertia about N.CX.A Equivalent beam of same width and I.2.A from A .2.855 metre.855 M CROSS SECTION OF SHORTER BEAM SPRING CONSTANTS I  N> (N)> NODE NO. A.2.905 metre x 80. I 80.122 A.THIS BEAM HAS A CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF 3.877 M~ ALL DIMENSIONS ARE I N H. Both these values are treated as lower bound.5 Idealised beam for the raft as a whole in shorter direction and cross section of the beam .
M) Fig.i I APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 408373 4la674 SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM ( I N KN) BENDING MUMENT DIAGRAM ( I N KNM) I SOIL PRESSURE DIAGRAM ( I N KN/Sa.855 metre. Thus equivalent beam is of cross section 0.6 Force diagram for raft as a whole (Short direction) Equivalent beam of same width and I would have depth . . A.2.905 metre x 80.
8 respectively.539 .253 .187.579 233. spring constant and result obtained are shown in Fig.794 9 1. It would be noted that while analysing this strip strings have been located at a closer interval as compared to long direction.848 222.I 36.994 .2.000 .220 137.3 Table showing values of Shear Force.289 82.160 317.17.458 136. A.997 .187.994 401. is not shown.2.2.J7 Node 1 Shear Force in Kn Right 0.000 .434.852 16. This is not necessary in each case. Bending Moment and Soil Pressure for the raft as a whole in shorter direction Node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Shear Force in KN Left 0.856 .425 187.459 184. position of springs.000 278.539 .013 83.4 10.256.408.124 RAFF FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS I I Table A.046 66.143 140.185.674 184.3 and Fig. Table A.17.2.25.089 361.424.000 .188.441 24.2 Table showing values of Shear Force.690 .334 113.188. A.167 217.852 16.973 124.924 . Calculations for determining depth of equivalent beam.110 .660 0.806 136.934 66.843 111.074 .2.470 115.278 80.840 .908 109.130.110 1 16.058 .228 117.147 115.840 .160 256.829 124.689 99.0 13 0.651 92.580 Soil Pressure KE!/~' 113.140 367.254.373 190.2.660 0.177.57.2.7 Analysis for a Strip in the Short Direction The equivalent beam for the strip M7 .372 0.985 82.219 .000 Moments KNm Right 0.659 190. and spring constant.7 Table A. A. Bending Moment and Soil Pressure for the beam M7 .254.110 416.629 Moments KNm Soil Pressure KN/~* ' 0.253 .2.155 177.268 A. These are upper bound value and can be decreased by 30% for design. shown in Fig.816 .690 .530 235.196 0.000 318.136.008 126.
E BR /I K = 11000 X 5.7525 = 101341. Idealised beam for strip M7J7 I SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM FOR BEAM 'M7J7' ( I N KN) I BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM FOR BEAM 'M7J7' ( I N KNM) I SOIL PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR BEAM 'M7J7' ( I N KN/Sq.l Fig.7.257 X 1.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 2542 KN 3807 KN 3836 KN 2678 KN SPRING CONSTANTS : N> (N>> N D N . OE O M M E NO.2.2.8 Force diagram for idealised beam for strip M7J7 .) Fig.8 KN/M <ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN U. A. A.
J11 MI1 are only analysed in short direction.M11 and J15 MIS.10 and table A.M value of +_ 210 KNmIper metre width throughout and additional reinforcement added in the portion where it goes more.K. Values shown in Fig. A. A. stripJ10M10andJ16M16arestripJ9M9andJ17M17areminrorimageofeachotherwithvery slight variation in loads. instead of going through all strips. A. This being only an illustration.M5. I I . Either these are low or within 30%.2. So O. obtained from analysis of individual strip in long direction are not much different from that obtained from raft as a whole.4 are thus 70% of values actually obtained.2.126 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS A. J9 . J10 M10.2 is idealised as a long beam as shown in Fig.2. It would thus be O.M7. if raft in the long direction is designed for a B.2. (b) Values of B.29 and A2. A.10 .J7 .M9. Bending moment shear force and pressure diagram are indicated in Fig. 1 . Allowing a reduction of 30% this will be very near to SBC.M. further inferences are drawn from these analysed strips. It would be noted that strip J11 .2.2.2.9 Other Strips Though the method requires all strips to be analysed but having a look on the loading on the raft some strips can be left out and some analysed.9 Idealised beam on elastic foundation for strip L5L20 in long direction From these results it is observed that: (a) Values of soil pressure at various nodes in all the four analysis carried out and shown above are generally within safe bearing pressure of 130 KN/m2. .8 Analysis of a Strip in the Long Direction Strip L5 . @ > SPRING CONSTANTSIN lECleER N E w R > M WER E Fig.9 . It is to be noted that these values are upper bound values and can be decreased by 30% to allow for sharing of the load by other strips or in the other direction. In this case it would be sufficient if strips J5 . A.K.L20 shown in Fig. One end and one middle strip can be analysed in long direction. Maximum value reached at any point in a strip is 187 KNIsqm. A.
given above are per unit width of the strips. Care is to be taken to see that reinforcement detailing in slab is such that it is also capable of functioning as a slab supported on the four edges carrying a load equal to the upward average pressure of soil.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM C I N KN > 1 BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM C I N KNM ) SOIL PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR BEAM L5L20 < I N KN/Sq. A.M.M.430 K N d m .M > Fig. + .2. Using these values of per unit width total bending moment to be resisted by each strip should first be calculated and then the design carried out for the T beam.M. (d) While designing the raft it is to be seen that the values of B. in short direction between strips and raft as a whole is not much different and can be designed for a value of 250 K N d m and additional reinforcement added in central portion to resist a total B. value of . while the raft actually provided consists of beams and slab.10 Force diagrams for beam LSL20 (c) B.
2.LU) shear Force in KN Moments KNm Right Soil Pressure KN/~' L. Bending Moment and Soil Pressure for the beam L5 .4 Table showing values of Shear Force.128 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS Table A.ft .
= 2. The piles have been spaced as below: Portion PQR W . A the cross sectional area and L is the length of the pile.I I 1 ! 'APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 129 A. F12. A. I A.3 as a blow up. : Portion RRl Wl W . C1 and F10. Then again in the 1st floor level building has a set back from the basement line with the result that the columns F13. H13.3. K13.A plan of the building at the basement level is given in Fig.40 x 1.1 Example Selected The building consists of 3 blocks.1. are lightly loaded. A2. H10 is shown in Fig. Each pile has a safe load bearing capacity of 46 tonnes. M5. H3. C2. A.925 metres. Expansion joints have been provided to separate two storeyed blocks from 8 storeyed blocks but the joint is not continued in the raft which is made continuous. According to Bowles has a value of I .10 VQliation on Value of K and Seismic Effects 1 I Analysis has been carried out for a single value of K. it could abo be analysed adopting the approach of beam on elastic foundation as given in Example 11. The piles being predominantly frictional piles. The piled raft has been modelled as a plate consisting of plate bending elements and the piles are modelled as axial elements. Analysis has been canied out using a general purpose 3 dimensional finite element package (SAP IV). F3. h is a factor depending upon the pile characteristics. The building at the groundfloor extend beyond the basement in the portion shown dotted in the above figure. M7.2 Type of RaftAdopted The raft adopted in this case is a slab of uniform thickness of 1. Portion WW. A. the axial stiffness of the pile element has been taken as h EAIL where E is modulus of elasticity.52 metres. Expansion joint as provided are shown in this plan.3 Example 3: Piled Raftplate on Elastic Foundation Ideally the raft should be designed as a flexible plate supported on piles and soil taking into account the pile. Further refinement somewhat short of ideal solution could be to treat the raft as a plate supported on springs neglecting the effect of one pile on the other and the effect of soil on the raft. The most simple method could be to treat piles being replaced by soil having a bearing capacity higher than the total load canying capacity of piles actually provided.2. In the present example this method is used.2 andA. H12. Effect of earth quake forces has not been considered.3.1. M9. for end bearing piles and 2 for friction piles. As an improvement. The depth has been decided on the consideration of punching shear in accordance with the provision of IS: 4561978 as per calculation given below: .3. K3. divided by the area of the raft.2 metres. The entire building has a basement and has a T shape.3.54 x 1.3. Arrangement of piles in the panel A1.UV and RSTR.54 metres x 1. It would be therefore necessary to adopt a minimum value of BM's as f w12/10 by treating the raft as inverted floor system with a uniform load of 120 KN/m2 as done in preliminary designs. The raft can then be designed by rigid method as already explained in Example I. Ml I. soil raft and superstructure interaction. The two side blocks are two storeyed and the central block is 8 storeyed. A.1. 708 bored castinsitu 21 metre long piles have been provided.52 with some extra piles near column C2 and C14 which are comparatively more loaded in this area.
3..e.3 KN Thus.5 + PC)but not greater than 1.3 KN Therefore P = 6095. 2 T.16% For concrete of M20 grade fck = 20 Nlmm T.1 Plan of raft showing column locations The permissible shear stress at the critical section.16 &= 0. PCbeing the ratio of short side to longer side of the column.72 N/mm2 Here the column for which the check is being applied is 750 mm x 750 mm with maximum load being 6095. = 0. Permissible stress . where K . i. at dl2 from the column faces is equalto Ks T. A.130 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS PANSION JOINT 3!4 6l6 + SHOWS COLUMN LOCATIONS I I SHOWS TWIN COLUMN LOCATIONS Fig. = (0. = 0..
3.APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES I  7314 I Fig.2 Blow up of Y showing pile locations and plate elements .2 Blow up of X showing pile locations and plate elements  9 SHOVS PILE LOCATION NODE NUnBER (N) @SHNS PLATE ELDENT NUMBER (E) Fig.3. A. A.
A2. Arrangement of plate element has been shown in the blow up figures A. The load on each column has been distributed on the 4 nodes around the columns in proportion to the contributory areas as per calculation shown below: Let the column (here F12) be surrounded by the four nodes (i.3.3. effective cover Thus overall depth required Overall depth provided A. N2.al area of the element gets divided into four parts A.3.e. = Area opposite node Ni .132 RAFT FOUNDATIONSDESIGNAND ANALYSIS Area of concrete resisting the shear =2{(750+d)+(750+d)}d =4(750+d)d Therefore shear stress For a clear cover of 60 mm and 20 mm diameter steel. N3 and N4 to make a rectanguldplate element of size 1925 mm x 1540 mm.3. pile points) N1.3 Division of l a # into Plate Elements = 1127+70= 1197mm = 1200 mm The raft has been divided into plate elements with nodes on each pile.3. A3 and A4 as shown in Fig.4: Now the load on any node Niis given by. No nodes have been located under the columns.2 and A. A. Here P = Total load of the column A. The td..
590.567 and 566 respectively.591. .4 Distribution of column load on surrounding nodes Here Total area of the plate element = 2964500 mm2 Here N1. N2.I APPENDIXILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES I 2 9 Fig.3. One such case is available at nodes between columns H9 and HlO. the sum of all such loads should be taken. A. N3 and N4 are node nos. Here the loads on corresponding nodes are / Here the nodes are not getting any load from other columns. In case load from other column(s) is also coming onto a particular node.
In this example there was no possibility of obtaining piles with higher load and proposal was thereyore being processed for additional piles in sections where load was exceeding. The values of the moment in X and Y direction are plotted on the plan and used for design purposes. Care is required to be taken while detailing reinforcement.above analysis is carried out considering only vertical loads and neglecting the effect of rigidity of superstructure and retaining walls. option is available in the SAP programme to define that point as the 5th node.134 RAFr FOUNDATIONSDESIGN AND ANALYSIS A.6. * . This is explained in para 8. as already explained in Chapter 8 . Approach actually to be adopted will depend upon the particular case. In case. j i + : 1 . but the thickness has not been considered in this model and the modelling is done at the central plane of the thickness. Though the raft is 1 :2 metre thick. Care is also to be taken to see that difference between the actual structure and the modelling is taken into account in detailing. minimum values of bending moment at any location should be ~ 1 ~ 1 determined by treating the raft as an inverted floor.5.3. Once this is done. these values are required at any other point other than the centre point. Loads on each pile are also given as an output. J 1 . However. Loads on some piles would also 8e found to be exceeding safe bearing capacity by as much as 75%. question of effect of seismic forces would arise.4 Output Output gives moments about X axis. Y axis and inplane moment of the element at the centre point of the element. It would therefore be necessary to select one of the two approaches given in para 12. In case analysis is not repeated taking into account seismic forces.3. 10 This would result in a safe design.