This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

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

, India

th

**A Parametric Study on Raft Foundation
**

G. S. Kame, S. K. Ukarande

MGM College of Engineering & Technology, Navi Mumbai, India

K. Borgaonkar, V. A. Sawant

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India Keywords: raft, Winkler foundation, thick plate ABSTRACT: The Finite element analysis adopted for raft is based on the classical theory of thick plates resting on Winkler foundation that accounts for the transverse shear deformation of the plate. Four noded, isoparametric rectangular elements with three degree of freedom per node are considered in the development of finite element formulation. Independent bilinear shape functions are assumed for displacement and rotational degrees of freedom. Effect of raft thickness, soil modulus and load pattern on the response is considered.

1 Introduction

A raft or mat foundation is a large concrete slab used to interface columns in several lines with the base soil. It may occupy the entire foundation area or only a part of it. A raft foundation may be used where the base soil has a low bearing capacity and/or the column loads are so large that more than 50 percent of the area is covered by conventional spread footings. The methods available for analysis of such rafts are, Rigid beam analysis (conventional method) and Non-rigid or Elastic method. Rigid beam analysis can be used when the settlements are small. This is the simplest approach. It assumes that mat is infinitely rigid with negligible flexural deflection and the soil is a linear elastic material. It also assumes the soil bearing pressure is uniform across the bottom of the footing if only concentric axial loads are present or it varies linearly across the footing if eccentric or moment loads are present. Although this type of analysis is appropriate for spread footing, it does not accurately model mat foundations. Mats are not truly rigid, so the settlement beneath the columns will be greater than that beneath unloaded areas. These differential settlements will cause variations in the soil bearing pressure and corresponding changes in the flexural stresses in the mat. Non-rigid or Elastic method involves plates or beams on elastic foundations, plates or beams on elastic half space (elastic continuum), Readymade closed form solutions by elastic theory and, Discrete element methods, where the mat is divided into elements by grids. The Discrete element method includes, Finite Difference Method, Finite Element Method (FEM), and Finite Grid Method (FGM). Finite element analysis is the most accurate way of analyzing the raft in which raft can be considered as plate resting on elastic foundation. The soil below the raft is treated as either Winkler foundation or elastic continuum. Noorzaei et al (1991) used beam element, plate element and brick element to model space frame, raft and soil in the analysis. A detailed parametric study of the effect of variation in raft thickness on space frame-raft soil system had presented. In the present paper Finite element analysis of raft is presented by modelling raft as thick plate resting on Winkler foundation wherein effect of raft thickness, soil modulus and load pattern on the response is considered.

**2 Finite element formulation for raft
**

The finite element method transforms the problem of plates on elastic foundation into a computer-oriented procedure of matrix structural analysis. The plate (raft) is idealized as a mesh of finite elements interconnected only at the nodes (corners), and the soil may be modeled as a set of isolated springs (Winkler foundation). The Finite element analysis adopted for raft is based on the classical theory of thick plates resting on Winkler foundation (Figure 1) that accounts for the transverse shear deformation of the plate. The formulation is based on the assumptions that deflections are small compared with the thickness of plate, and that a normal to the middle surface of the undeformed plate remains straight, but not necessarily normal to the middle surface of deformed

3077

and θy can be written in matrix form as. rotation about x-axis θx. U= 1 1 T T ∫ H [Db ][H ] dA + 2 ∫ γ [Ds ][γ ] dA − ∫ w q( x. linear elastic plate including transverse shear deformation effects can be expressed as. Independent bilinear shape functions are assumed for displacement and rotational degrees of freedom. y) dA 2A A A ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎥ ⎢1 ν Et 3 ⎢ν 1 [Db ] = 0 ⎥ 12(1 −ν 2 ) ⎢ 1 −ν ⎥ ⎥ ⎢0 0 2 ⎦ ⎣ [ ] [ ] …(1) ⎧ ∂θ x ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ∂x ⎪ ⎪ ∂θ y ⎪ ⎪ [H ] = ⎨ − ⎬. the nodal variables w. ν is the Poisson’s ratio. E is the Young’s modulus. The stresses normal to the middle surface are considered negligible. t is the plate thickness and A is the element area. The strain energy of an isotropic. Using independent shape functions. isoparametric rectangular elements with three degree of freedom per node (the transverse displacement w. 3078 . κ is the shear correction factor. and rotation about y-axis θy) are considered in the development of finite element formulation. ⎪ ∂w + θ x ⎪ ⎪ ∂x ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ [D s ] = Etκ ⎡1 0⎤ 2(1 + ν ) ⎢0 1⎥ ⎣ ⎦ …(3) In the above equations.plate. Figure 1 Structural idealisation of raft and supporting soil Figure 2 Rectangular plate element Four noded. θx. q is the intensity of load per unit area. ∂y ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ∂θ x ∂θ y ⎪ ⎪ ∂y − ∂x ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ …(2) ⎧ ∂w ⎫ ⎪ −θ y ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ∂y [γ ] = ⎨ ⎬.

⎧ w ⎫ ⎡ N1 ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎨θ x ⎬ = ⎢ 0 ⎪θ ⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎩ y⎭ ⎣ with 0 N1 0 {d }T = [w1 θ x1 θ y1 w2 θ x 2 θ y 2 [H ] = [Bb ] {d } and [γ ] = [Bs ] {d } in 0 0 N1 N2 0 0 0 N2 0 0 0 N2 N3 0 0 0 N3 0 0 0 N3 N4 0 0 0 N4 0 0⎤ 0 ⎥{d } = [N ]{d } ⎥ N4 ⎥ ⎦ …(4) w3 θ x 3 θ y 3 which. simply supported square plate with dimension a × a subjected to uniformly distributed load q is considered. Central deflections obtained from the finite element analysis are compared with the analytical solutions available for thin plates. The total strain energy of the raft-foundation system can be obtained by adding the strain energy Uf of the foundation. For validation of the program. as follows wn = wmax Et 3 12(1 − μ 2 )qa 4 Non. 1 1 Ut = U +U f …(8) By equating first variation of total strain energy to zero. By assuming full contact between raft and soilsubgrade. ⎡ ∂N i ⎢ = ⎢ ∂y ⎢ ∂N i ⎢ ∂x ⎣ w4 θ x 4 θ y 4 ] [Bb ]i ⎡ ⎢0 ⎢ = ⎢0 ⎢ ⎢ ⎢0 ⎢ ⎣ ∂N i ∂x 0 ∂N i ∂y ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ∂N i ⎥ and − ∂y ⎥ ∂N i ⎥ ⎥ − ∂x ⎥ ⎦ 0 [Bs ]i 0 Ni ⎤ − Ni ⎥ ⎥ i = 1. the strain energy of foundation with modulus of subgrade reaction ks can be written as.dimensional Deflection for square plates with dimensions 7. −1 −1 {Q} = ∫ ∫ [N w ] −1 −1 1 1 T q J dξdη 3 Validation A computer program is developed in FORTRAN 90 based on above formulation. 1 1 T T U f = ∫ wT k s w dA = ∫ ∫ {d } [N w ] k s [N w ] {d } J dξdη 2A 2 −1 −1 …(7) The total strain energy Ut of the plate foundation system is given by addition of two. the force-deflection equation for plate-foundation element can be expressed as. [[k ] + [k ] + [k ]] {d } = {Q} b s f …(9) where [k b ] = ∫ ∫ [Bb ]T [Db ][Bb ] −1 −1 1 1 1 1 J dξdη . Central deflection wmax of the plate is converted in non-dimensional form wn. [k s ] = ∫ ∫ [Bs ]T [Ds ][Bs ] −1 −1 1 1 J dξdη …(10) [k ] = ∫ ∫ [N ] f w T k s [N w ] J dξdη . 4 0 ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ …(5) From which the equation of strain energy can be expressed in a simplified form as follows.62m ×7. 1 T T U = ∫ ∫ {d } [Bb ] [Db ][Bb ] {d } J dξdη 2 −1 −1 1 T T T T + ∫ ∫ {d } [B s ] [D s ][B s ] {d } J dξdη − ∫ ∫ {d } [N w ] q J dξdη 2 −1 −1 −1 −1 where 1 1 1 1 1 1 …(6) [N w ] = [N 1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0 N4 0 0] The above equation represents the strain energy due to bending and transverse shear deformation of plate and potential energy due to applied external load.62m and thickness ranging from 3079 .

As expected. For load pattern I and II.00445 0. LP-II.1 Load pattern I A typical deflection pattern at different positions in the raft is presented in Figure 4a.3048 0.1524m thick plate is found to be 0.01694 0. 2. 4 Parametric Study In the present investigations it is aimed to study the effect of following parameters on the rectangular raft foundation using finite element analysis. and the deflection along central line for different thickness are compared in Figure 4b (Soil Modulus 40000). With increase in the thickness deflection curves are flatter and central deflections are increased at higher thickness for Soil Modulus 40000.01294 0. 100000. 1. LP-III as indicated in Figure 3) For specified three load patterns. Effect of thickness on bending moment is negligible with marginal increase positive moment at smaller thickness. Maximum deflections are found to be decreasing with increase in raft thickness and soil modulus. 400000)kN/m .1524 0. Column loads (three load patterns LP-I. 0.9m. This provides necessary validation check for the developed computer program.3810 0. but response to raft thickness is complex.00406. 3. central line is deflected more as compare with second. Figure 3 Load Patterns considered in the analysis 4.0.5334 0. raft thickness and soil modulus are varied to study their effect on the response. raft with dimension 10m×10m are considered. Maximum deflections for different thickness and soil modulus are compared in Table 2. and computed value of NonDimensional Deflection for 0. Figure 5 presents typical moment diagram at different position for 0.45m thickness and comparison of moment along centre line for all thickness.2286 0. 3080 . Thickness of the raft (0.1524m to 0. 200000.00862 0. where as 26m ×14m is employed in load pattern III.533m are reported in Table 1.00445. 1. Bending moment under the load is hogging moment. Table 1 Non-Dimensional Deflection Plate thickness t (m) Non-Dimensional Deflection wn 0. Deflection and bending moments in the raft are devised to compare the response.4572 0.02055 0.02379 Analytical value of Non-Dimensional Deflection for thin square plate is 0. which is in close agreement with standard solution.45m.5m) 3 Modulus of subgrade reaction (40000.

460 Raft Thickness(m) 0.64 3.517 0.56 1.Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Deflection Maximum Deflection(mm) for modulus 40000 3. LP-I) 3081 .72 3.45 0.88 100000 1.9 1.842 400000 0.78 1.60 200000 1.765 0.120 0.867 0.5 Figure 4 Deflected Shape (Es 40000.

Effect of Soil Modulus and thickness on maximum deflection is compared in Table 3.612 0.87 1.19 0. Similar comparisons for bending moment are reported in Table 4 and 5.333 Soil Modulus 40000 100000 200000 400000 3082 .318 3.45m 0.15 0.9m 1.Figure 5 Moment diagram (Es40000. When effect of soil modulus is considered.62 0.15 1. At lower soil modulus. and negative bending moments are increasing with soil modulus. Positive bending moments are increasing with raft thickness and negative bending moments are reduced with raft thickness.2 Load pattern II Deflected shape and bending moment diagram along central line of raft for all thicknesses are compared in Figure 6 and 7 for soil modulus 100000 kN/m3.75 1. LP-I) 4. deflections are increasing with raft thickness and at higher modulus reverse trend is observed.28 0. Effect of raft thickness is quite complex. Table 3 Effect of Soil Modulus and thickness on Deflection Maximum Deflection in mm Thickness Thickness Thickness 0.65 0.5m 2.383 2. Maximum deflections are observed to be decreasing with increase in soil modulus. it is found that positive bending moments are decreasing at higher modulus.

9725 Quarter 41.9105 81.895 14.321 Centre -74.269 85.976 58.7645 51.008 Table 5 Effect of Soil Modulus (LP-II) Max.754 -53.45 0.041 -67.9555 92.846 Edge 68.2355 Centre 49.7125 19.405 -62. positive BM Second 60.377 Max.9105 Quarter 0 0 0 Centre -71.599 Quarter 0 0 -0.134 -87. positive BM Thickness 0. negative BM Second -72.469 Second -74.0945 98.6505 68.831 3083 .8925 Centre 63.643 -83.439 -64.023 -49.5455 -65.531 Quarter 27.428 Max.623 97.363 43.5 Second 75.932 -84.698 35. negative BM Es 100000 200000 400000 Edge -40.286 -81.9 1.971 50.439 41.Table 4 Effect of Thickness (LP-II) Max.

45 0. whereas negative bending moments are more or less constant for given loading combination.675 197. Effect of thickness on maximum deflection and bending moments are compared in Table 7.448 5 Conclusions A parametric study on raft foundations is presented wherein effect of raft thickness. Maximum deflections are observed to be decreasing with increase in raft thickness. soil modulus and load pattern 3084 .153 -294.11 Positive BM (kNm) 179.4. Table 7 Comparison of maximum values for all thickness LP-III Maximum Thickness (m) 0.9 1.3 Load pattern III Similar variations in deflected shape and bending moment diagram for three thicknesses are compared in Figure 8 and 9 for soil modulus 100000 kN/m3.511 219.14 10.255 -296. Maximum positive bending moments are increasing with raft thickness.5 Deflection (mm) 13.00 11.049 Negative BM (kNm) -298.

. deflections are increasing with raft thickness and at higher modulus trend is reverse. Positive bending moments are increasing with raft thickness and negative bending moments are reduced with raft thickness. it is found that positive bending moments are decreasing at higher modulus. 1968. Viladkar M. 1235-1247. At lower soil modulus. C. Godbole p. 40(5).. 6 References Noorzaei J. Zienkiewicz O. When effect of soil modulus is considered. N. London. 1991. N. and negative bending moments are increasing with soil modulus.on the response is considered. 3085 . Computers & Structures. McGraw Hill. The Finite Element Method in Structural & Continuum Mechanics. Soil-structure interaction of space frame-raft-soil syatem: A parametric study.