Introduction to Soil

Structure Interaction
Analysis
 Rational Design of Shallow Foundations
1. Every engineering structure, whether it is a building, bridge,
highway pavement or railway track, consists of a superstructure
(above ground) and a foundation

2. The function of the foundation is to transmit the load from the

superstructure to the soil or rock below the foundation.
 Rational Design of Shallow Foundations
 A proper foundation design has to ensure that no
component of either the superstructure or the
foundation experiences distress of any kind in the
above process of load transmission
 The conventional method of design of a footing is to
assume the footing as rigid and the distribution of
contact pressure at the surface of contact between the
base of a foundation and the supporting soil as planar,
that is, uniform or uniformly varying depending
upon whether the foundation supports symmetric or
eccentric loading.
 This assumption of planar contact pressure
distribution is far from reality and therefore, to be
realistic in design, the flexibility of the footing and
the soil type (which together give rise to variable
contact pressure distribution) should be considered
(Kurian, 1992).
 Rational Design of Shallow Foundations

 The design of foundation system consists of two

phases. These are referred to as:
1. Geotechnical (GT) design and
2. Structural design.
 The aim of GT design essentially is to arrive at the
plan dimensions of the foundation, satisfying the soil
design parameters, viz bearing capacity and
settlement.
 The structural design is taken up only after its GT
design is completed, which determines the footing
thickness and also the quantum and location of
reinforcement.
However the design has to be carried out as per
local codes of practice.
 Shallow Foundations
 Foundation structures are customarily divided into
shallow or deep on the basis of their depth in relation
to their width, the typical divide being the unit value
for the ratio (Df/B), that is, Df/B<1 for shallow
foundations and Df/B > 1 for deep foundations.
 The real difference between shallow and deep
foundations is based on the structural response as
well as the depth to which the foundation is taken.
 Bending (flexure) is the predominant structural action
in the case of shallow foundations.
 The behaviour of deep foundations could result in
axial and lateral loads besides bending moments and
torsional moments.
 The deep foundation–soil interaction needs a detailed
analysis.
Types of Shallow Foundations
Types of Shallow Foundations
Types of Shallow Foundations
 Is the Assumption Realistic ?

 In the conventional design of footings, the soil

pressure is assumed to be uniform or linearly varying
depending upon whether the foundation supports
symmetric or eccentric loading.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 In general, foundations are not perfectly flexible and

are embedded at a certain depth below the ground
surface.
 If the foundation is subjected to a uniformly
distributed load, the contact pressure will be uniform
and the foundation will experience a sagging profile.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 If we consider a perfectly rigid foundation resting on

the ground surface subjected to a uniformly
distributed load, the contact pressure and foundation
settlement profile will be as shown in Figure: the
foundation will undergo a uniform settlement and the
contact pressure will be redistributed.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 Additionally, there is a lack of lateral confinement on

the edge of the foundation at the ground surface.
 The sand at the edge of a flexible foundation is pushed
outward, and the deflection curve of the foundation
takes a concave downward shape. The edges of the
foundation will undergo a larger settlement than the
center.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 A rigid foundation resting on a sand layer will settle

uniformly.
 The contact pressure on the foundation will increase
from zero at the edge to a maximum at the center, as
shown in Figure.
Max BM will be underestimated and Unsafe

 Hence the assumption of uniform pressure

distribution results in a slightly unsafe design for
rigid footings on clays as the maximum bending
moment at the center is underestimated.
Max BM overestimated & conservative design

 It will give a conservative design for rigid

footings on sandy soils as the maximum
bending moment is overestimated.
Realistic distribution of contact pressure
needs to be considered
 Hence the necessity for developing effective and safe
design for foundations based on realistic distribution
of soil pressure, obtained by a rational interaction
analysis, known as flexible or elastic designs, arises
from the above drawbacks.

 While the footing can be modeled as a beam (one-

dimensional) or a plate or a shell (twodimensional)
and classical bending theories can be used for
representing their response, the soil reaction has to be
incorporated in the integrated analysis of soil–
structure interaction equation by modeling the soil
appropriately using different models
 Soil Structure Interaction Analysis
 The problem of foundation–structure interaction is generally
solved by incorporating the reaction from the foundation, into
the response mechanism of the structure, by idealizing the
foundation by a suitable mathematical model.

 Even if the foundation medium happens to be complex in

some problems, in a majority of cases, the response of the
structure at the contact surface is of prime interest and hence,
it would be of immense help in the analysis, if the foundation
can be represented by a simple mathematical model, without
foregoing the desired accuracy.

 To accomplish this objective, many foundation models have

been proposed and a comprehensive review pertaining to
these has been given by many authors.
 Modeling Soil Structure Interaction
 It is generally observed that the modeling of the superstructure
and foundation are rather simpler and straightforward than that
of the soil medium underneath.
 However, soil is having very complex characteristics, since it is
heterogeneous, anisotropic and nonlinear in force–displacement
characteristics.
 The presence of fluctuation of water table further adds to its
complexity.
 Modeling Soil Structure Interaction
 It is generally observed that the modeling of the superstructure
and foundation are rather simpler and straightforward than that
of the soil medium underneath.
 However, soil is having very complex characteristics, since it is
heterogeneous, anisotropic and nonlinear in force–displacement
characteristics.
 The presence of fluctuation of water table further adds to its
complexity.
 Modeling Soil Media
 The search for a physically close and mathematically simple
model to represent the soil-media in the soil–structure
interaction problem shows two basic classical approaches, viz.,
Winklerian approach and Continuum approach.

 At the foundation-supporting soil interface, contact pressure

distribution is the important parameter.

 The variation of pressure distribution depends on the foundation

behaviour (viz., rigid or flexible: two extreme situations) and
nature of soil deposit (clay or sand etc.).

 Since the philosophy of foundation design is to spread the load

of the structure on to the soil, ideal foundation modeling is that
wherein the distribution of contact pressure is simulated in a
more realistic manner.
 Modeling Soil Media
 From this viewpoint, both the fundamental approaches have
some characteristic limitations. However, the mechanical
behaviour of subsoil appears to be utterly erratic and complex
and it seems to be impossible to establish any mathematical
law that would conform to actual observation.

 In this context, simplicity of models, many a time, becomes a

prime consideration and they often yield reasonable results.

 Attempts have been made to improve upon these models by

some suitable modifications to simulate the behaviour of soil
more closely from physical standpoint.

 In the recent years, a number of studies have been conducted

in the area of soil–structure interaction modeling.
 Modeling Soil Media
 From this viewpoint, both the fundamental approaches have
some characteristic limitations. However, the mechanical
behaviour of subsoil appears to be utterly erratic and complex
and it seems to be impossible to establish any mathematical
law that would conform to actual observation.

 In this context, simplicity of models, many a time, becomes a

prime consideration and they often yield reasonable results.

 Attempts have been made to improve upon these models by

some suitable modifications to simulate the behaviour of soil
more closely from physical standpoint.

 In the recent years, a number of studies have been conducted

in the area of soil–structure interaction modeling.
 Winkler (1867)
The earliest use of these "springs" to represent the
interaction between soil and foundation was done by Winkler
in 1867; the model is thus referred to as the Winkler method

The one-dimensional representation of this is a "beam on

elastic foundation," thus sometimes it is called the "beam on
elastic foundation" method.

Mat foundations represent a two-dimensional application of

the Winkler method
Winkler Model
 Winkler Model

 Winkler’s idealization represents the soil medium as a

system of identical but mutually independent, closely spaced,
discrete, linearly elastic springs.
 According to this idealization, deformation of foundation due
to applied load is confined to loaded regions only.
 Figure shows the physical representation of the Winkler
foundation.
 The pressure–deflection relation at any point is given by p =
kw, where k = modulus of subgrade reaction.
 Winkler Model

Winkler, assumed the foundation model

to consist of closely spaced independent
linear springs.
If such a foundation is subjected to a
partially distributed surface loading, q,
the springs will not be affected beyond
the loaded region.
Winkler Model
 For such a situation, an
actual foundation is
observed to have the
surface deformation as
shown in Figure.
 Hence by comparing the
behaviour of theoretical
model and actual
foundation, it can be
seen that this model
essentially suffers from a
complete lack of
continuity in the
supporting medium.
 The load deflection
equation for this case
can be written as p = kw
Winkler Models
Limitations of Winkler Model
 According to this
idealization, deformation of
foundation due to applied
load is confined to loaded
regions only.
 A number of studies in the
area of soil–structure
interaction have been
conducted on the basis of
Winkler hypothesis for its
simplicity.
 The fundamental problem
with the use of this model is
to determine the stiffness of
elastic springs used to
replace the soil below
foundation.
Limitations of Winkler Model
 According to this
idealization, deformation of
foundation due to applied
load is confined to loaded
regions only.
 A number of studies in the
area of soil–structure
interaction have been
conducted on the basis of
Winkler hypothesis for its
simplicity.
 The fundamental problem
with the use of this model
is to determine the
stiffness of elastic springs
used to replace the soil
below foundation.
 Limitations of Winkler Model

 A number of studies in the area of soil–structure

interaction have been conducted on the basis of
Winkler hypothesis for its simplicity. The fundamental
problem with the use of this model is to determine the
stiffness of elastic springs used to replace the soil
below foundation.

 The problem becomes two-fold since the numerical

value of the coefficient of subgrade reaction not only
depends on the nature of the subgrade, but also on the
dimensions of the loaded area as well.
 Limitations of Winkler Model

 Since the subgrade stiffness is the only parameter in the

Winkler model to idealize the physical behaviour of the
subgrade, care must be taken to determine it
numerically to use in a practical problem.

 Modulus of subgrade reaction or the coefficient of

subgrade reaction k is the ratio between the pressure p
at any given point of the surface of contact and the
settlement y produced by the load at that point:
 Limitations of Winkler Model
 The value of subgrade modulus may be obtained in the
following alternative approaches:
• However, the basic limitations of Winkler hypothesis
lies in the fact that this model cannot account for the
dispersion of the load over a gradually increasing
influence area with increase in depth.
• Moreover, it considers linear stress–strain behaviour of
soil.
• The most serious demerit of Winkler model is the one
pertaining to the independence of the springs. So the
effect of the externally applied load gets localized to the
subgrade only to the point of its application.
• This implies no cohesive bond exists among the
particles comprising soil medium.
• Hence, several attempts have been made to develop
modified models to overcome these bottlenecks.
 Two Parameter Elastic Models
• The deficiency of the Winkler's Model in describing the
continuous behavior of real soil masses and the
mathematical complexities of the elastic continuum has
lead to the development of many other simple soil
behaviour models.

• These models posses some of the characteristics

features of continuous elastic solids. The term "Two
Parameter“ signifies that the model is defined by two
independent elastic constant.
 Two Parameter Elastic Models
• The development of these models has been approached
along following different lines.
1. The First type stems from the discontinuous
Winkler's model and eliminates its discontinuous
behavior by providing mechanical interaction
between the individual spring elements by either
elastic membranes, elastic beams or elastic layers
capable of purely shearing deformations (i.e.
Filonenko-Borodich, Hetenyi, Pasternak and kerr).
2. The Second approach proceeds from the elastic
continuum model and introduces constraints or
simplifying assumptions with respect to the
distribution of displacements and stresses (Reissner,
Vlazov and Leontiev).
Two Parameter Elastic Models
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual spring elements in the
Winkler's model by connecting them to a thin elastic membranes under a
constant tension T.
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual
spring elements in the Winkler's model by connecting
them to a thin elastic membranes under a constant
tension T.

Concentrated Load
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual
spring elements in the Winkler's model by connecting
them to a thin elastic membranes under a constant
tension T.

Rigid Load
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual
spring elements in the Winkler's model by connecting
them to a thin elastic membranes under a constant
tension T.

Uniform Flexible Load

 Filanenko Borodich Model
The response of the model can be expressed
mathematically as follows:

Hence, the interaction of the spring

elements is characterized by the intensity
of the tension T in the membrane.
 Hetenyi’s Model
This model suggested in the literature can be regarded as
a fair compromise between two extreme approaches (viz.,
Winkler foundation and isotropic continuum). In this
model, the interaction among the discrete springs is
accomplished by incorporating an elastic beam or an
elastic plate, which undergoes flexural deformation only
Hetenyi’s Model
 Pasternak Model
• In this model, existence of shear interaction among the
spring elements is assumed which is accomplished by
connecting the ends of the springs to a beam or plate
that only undergoes transverse shear deformation.
• The load–deflection relationship is obtained by
considering the vertical equilibrium of a shear layer.
 Pasternak Model

The pressure–deflection relationship is given by

 Pasternak Model
The continuity in this model is
characterized by the consideration of
the shear layer.
A comparison of this model with that
of Filonenko–Borodich implies their
physical equivalency (‘‘T’’ has been
replaced by ‘‘G’’).
 Kerr Model
A shear layer is introduced in the Winkler foundation
and the spring constants above and below this layer is
assumed to be different as per this formulation.
The following figure shows the physical representation
of this mechanical model. The governing differential
Fig. 4. Hetenyi foundation [30]. equation for this model
may be expressed as follows.
 Kerr Model
The governing differential equation for this model may
be expressed as follows.