Mtech Dissertation - Analysis of Raft Foundation Using Soil-Structure Interaction

ANALYSIS OF RAFT FOUNDATION USING SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement of the degree of
Master of Technology
(Civil – Geotechnical Engineering)
Submitted by
SHEVADE. B.S.
M. Tech. (Civil – Geotechnical Engineering)
Guide
Prof. Dr. S.R. PATHAK
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PUNE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
PUNE- 411005
2004 - 2005
ANALYSIS OF RAFT FOUNDATION USING SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement of the degree of
Master of Technology
(Civil – Geotechnical Engineering)
Submitted by
Shevade. B.S.
M. Tech. (Civil – Geotechnical Engineering)
Guide
Prof. Dr. Mrs. S. R. Pathak
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PUNE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
PUNE- 411005
2004 - 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I cherish this opportunity of being able to express my deep
gratitude to my guide Prof. Dr. Mrs. S. R. Pathak for his constant guidance,
advice & encouragement during the preparation & presentation of this project
work.
I would like to thank the Head Of Civil Engineering Department
Prof. Dr. U. J. Kahalekar for constructive encouragement.
Last but not the least, I am extremely grateful to
Mr. G.L. RAUT for his guidance and support during the software analysis
using STAAD Pro-2004. I am highly obliged to the library staff for their kind
co-operation during the literature survey.
Balraj Suresh Shevade, Place- Pune
M.Tech ( Civil – Geotechnical Engg.) Date- 06.06.2005
Roll. No. - M0310G08

INDEX
Sr.No. Description PageNo.

List of Figures.
List of Tables.
Abstract.
1. Introduction.
General 1
Types of raft. 1
Analysis of raft. 2
2. Soil Structure Interaction.

General. 3
Soil Structure Interaction. 3
Contact Pressure. 4
2.3.1. Contact Pressure by theory of 5
Elasticity.
2.3.2. Contact Pressure by theory of 7
Sub grade reaction.
2.4. Soil models used in Soil Structure 9
Interaction.
2.4.1. Numerical Models 11
2.4.2. Centrifuge Modeling. 12
2.4.3. Estimation of Modulus of Sub- 13
grade (k) value.
3. Methods of Analysis.
3.1. General. 16
3.2. Conventional Method. 17
3.2.1. Methodology. 17
3.3. Finite Difference Method. 18
3.3.1. Assumptions. 19
3.3.2. Finite Difference Plate Bending 19
Theory.
3.4. Finite Element Analysis. 22
3.4.1. Kirchoff’s plate theory. 23
3.4.2. Sub-structure Method. 23
3.4.3. Discretization 25
3.4.4. Displacement Models. 27
3.4.5. Variational Formulation. 29
3.4.6. Jacobian Operator. 32
3.4.7. Numerical Integration. 33
3.4.8. Boundary Conditions. 34
3.4.9. Global Stiffness Matrix 35
4. Analytical Work.
4.1. Conventional Method. 39
4.2. Finite Difference Method. 43
4.2.1. Without considering SSI 43
4.2.2. Considering SSI on Winkler’s 46
Soil model.
4.2.3. Considering SSI on Linear Elastic 51
Model.
4.3. Finite Element Method. 54
4.3.1. Discretization. 54
4.3.2. Nodal Degrees of Freedom and
Interpolation Function. 55
4.3.3. Jacobian and Numerical Integration 57
4.3.4. Boundary Conditions. 58
4.3.5. Global Stiffness Matrix. 58
4.3.6. Without considering SSI. 59
4.3.7. Considering SSI on Winkler’s 61
Soil model.
4.4. Analysis of raft foundation considering 64
SSI on Winkler’s model using STAAD
Pro 2004 software.
5. Results and Discussions.
5.1. Comparison of deflection values by 67
FDM and FEM without considering SSI.
5.2. Comparison of deflection values by 68
FDM and FEM without considering SSI.
5.3. Comparative study of deflection values 69
raft foundation with and without SSI.
5.4. Parametric study.

5.4.1. Conventional Method of raft 77
analysis.
5.4.2. FDM of raft analysis (Winkler’s 78
model).
5.4.3. FDM of raft analysis (LEM) 79
5.4.4. FEM of raft analysis (Winkler’s 80
model).
Conclusions. 83
Appendix –A. 85
Appendix –B. 86
Appendix –C. 91
References.
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.No. Description Page No.
2.1. Contact Pressure by Theory of Elasticity. 8
2.2. Contact Pressure by Theory of Sub grade 10
reaction.
2.3. Plate load test results. 14
3.1. Grid pattern and numbering system for FDM 20
3.2. Two dimensional discretization of raft for FE analysis 26
4.1. Plan of two bay two-storied structure. 36
4.2. Elevation of two bay two-storied structure. 36
4.3. Loads acting on raft. 37
4.4. Load transmission to supporting beams. 38
4.5. Grid pattern and numbering system for FDM 43
8m x 10m raft.
4.6. Contributing area for each node on raft grid. 47
4.7. Two dimensional discretization of raft for FE 55
analysis 8m x 10m raft, element size 2m x 2.5m.
4.8. Nodal Degrees of freedom. 55
5.1. Numbering system for FDM. 76
5.2. Numbering system for FEM. 76
LIST OF GRAPHS
4.1. Pressure Distribution along ABC, DEF and 40
GHI.
4.2. Deflection Profile along ABC, DEF and GHI. 40
4.3. Pressure Distribution along ADG, BEH and 41
CFI.
4.4. Deflection Profile along ADG, BEH and CFI. 41
4.5. Deflection Profile along17-10-4-12-20, 44
9-3-0-1-5 and 16-8-2-6-13 by FDM.
4.6. Deflection Profile along 18-10-3-8-15, 45
11-4-0-2-7 and 19-12-1-6-4 by FDM.
9-3-0-1-5 and 16-8-2-6-13 considering SSI
on Winkler’s model by FDM.
4.8. Contact Pressure along17-10-4-12-20, 49
4.10. Contact Pressure along18-10-3-8-15, 50
on LEM model by FDM.
on LEM model by FDM.
11-12-13-14-15 and 16-17-18-19 by FEM.
3-8-13-18-23 and 4-9-14-19-24 by FEM.
11-12-13-14-15 and 16-17-18-19 by FEM on
Winkler’s soil model.
4.16. Contact Pressure Distribution along 6-7-8-9-10, 61
11-12-13-14-15 and 16-17-18-19 by FEM on
3-8-13-18-23 and 4-9-14-19-24 by FEM on
4.18. Contact Pressure Distribution along 27-2-12-17-22, 62
3-8-13-18-23 and 4-9-14-19-24 by FEM on
11-12-13-14-15 and 16-17-18-19 by FEM using
STAAD Pro.
3-8-13-18-23 and 4-9-14-19-24 by FEM using
STAAD Pro.
5.1. Comparison of deflection with and without SSI 69
by FDM (along short span).
by FDM (along long span).
by FEM (along short span).
by FEM (along long span).
5.5. Comparison of deflection without SSI by 73
Conventional, FDM and FEM along short span.
5.6. Comparison of deflection with SSI by 74
FDM (Winkler’s model), FDM (LEM) and
FEM (Winkler’s Model) along short span.
5.7. Relation of L/B ratio and deflection obtained at 81
center by various methods of analysis.
5.8. Relation of L/B ratio and contact pressure 82
obtained at center by various methods of analysis.
LIST OF TABLES
4.1. Contact Pressure and deflections at various 39
locations on the raft by Conventional Method.
4.2. Deflection at various locations on raft without 44
SSI by FDM.
4.3. Deflection and contact pressures at various 48
locations on grid considering
SSI by FDM (Winkler’s model).
4.4. Deflection at various nodes on raft on grid 52
considering SSI by FDM(LEM).
4.5. Deflections at various nodes raft without SSI 58
by FEM.
4.6. Deflection and contact pressure distribution 60
at various nodes on the grid considering SSI
by FEM (Winkler’s model).
4.7. Deflection at various nodes on raft grid 64
considering SSI using STAAD Pro-2004.
5.1. Comparison by deflection values by FDM and 66
FEM without considering SSI.
5.2. Comparison by deflection values by FDM and 67
FEM considering SSI.
5.3. Comparative study of various methods of 75
analysis used without SSI and with SSI.
5.4. For various L/B ratio deflection and contact 77
pressures by Conventional Method.
pressures by FDM on Winkler’s model.
5.6. For various L/B ratio deflection by FDM on LEM. 79
pressures by FEM on Winkler’s model.
NOTATIONS
k - Modulus of sub grade reaction.

Es - Modulus of elasticity of soil.
νs -Poisson’s ratio of soil.
B – Width of the footing.
Q - Resultant of all column loads.
A - Plan area of the raft.
x - Distance from the Y-axis to the point of application of the resultant.
y - Distance from the X-axis to the point of application of the resultant.
ex - eccentricity in the direction of X axis = B/2 -x.
ey - eccentricity in the direction of Y axis
B - width of raft.
L - length of the raft.
Iyy and Ixx - moment of inertia of plan area of raft with respect to Y
and X-axis respectively.
qnet - Net intensity of pressure.
Cd - Shape and rigidity factor.
λx - width of rectangular area in X – direction.
λy - width of rectangular area in Y – direction.
D - Flexural rigidity of plate.
Ec - Modulus of Elasticity of concrete.
νc - Poisson’s ratio of concrete.
h -Thickness of plate.
w - deflection.
U - strain energy.
Wp - potential of applied loads.
X, Y, Z - body forces.
Tx , Ty , Tz - surface applied loads.
{u} - The displacements at any point within the element.
{q} - Displacements at nodes
[N] - Shape function obtained by isoparametric formulation.
{ε} - Vector of relevant strain components at an arbitrary point within the
finite element.
[B] - Strain displacement matrix.
V - volume of the body.
s1 - portion of body over which surface traction is specified.
[k] - Element stiffness matrix.
{Q} - Load matrix.
J - Jacobian operator or Jacobian Matrix.
αi,j - Weights.
ζi,ηj - sampling points.
ABREVATIONS
LEM – Linear Elastic soil model.
FDM – Finite Difference Method.
FEM - Finite Element Method.
SSI – Soil Structure Interaction.
ABSTRACT
Raft foundations are large slabs supporting a number of columns and walls under
the entire structure. Raft slab is required when the allowable pressure is low or
where the columns are spaced so close that the individual footings overlap. Raft
foundations are useful in reducing the differential settlements and sustaining
large variations in loads on the individual columns. In conventional analysis of
raft foundation the reactive soil pressures due to the loads from the structure are
not considered. This reactive pressure is important as the raft is subjected to
bending due to loads from the structure and also from the reactive pressure
offered by the soil. These effects considerably alter the forces and the moments
in the structural members. This is where soil structure interaction comes into
play. The effect of soil immediately beneath and around the structure, on the
response of the structure when subjected to external loads is considered in soil
structure interaction. In this case, the soil and structure are considered as
components of one elastic system. During the analysis soil can be modeled using
various soil models such as Linear elastic soil model, Winkler’s soil model etc. In
the present work, analysis is carried out using Winkler’s soil model, the methods
of analysis being used are, Finite Difference Method and Finite Element Method.
The deflections obtained from these two methods by considering soil structure
interaction are compared with the Conventional analysis. It has been observed
that the deflection using soil structure interaction is considerably reduced than
those by Conventional method of analysis. Thus the moments acting on the raft
slab are significantly reduced. This dissertation work deals with a comparative
study of effect of soil structure interaction on raft foundation using Finite
Difference Method and Finite Element Method considering two soil models,
Winkler’s soil model and Linear Elastic soil model.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. GENERAL:
A raft foundation is a large concrete slab used to interface one or
more columns in several lines with the base soil. It is a combined footing
that covers the entire area beneath the structure and supports the entire
load bearing columns and walls. Rafts are necessitated on account of
overlap of large individual footings under columns if they are closely
spaced. When the footing covers more than half the plan area, raft would
be adopted in preference to individual footings.
Raft foundations are used to support storage water tanks, several
pieces of industrial equipment, silo clusters, chimneys, high rise buildings
etc. Raft foundations are used where the base soil has low bearing
capacity and the column loads are so large that more than 50% of the
area is covered by spread footings. It is most common to use raft
foundation for deep basement both to spread column loads to a more
uniform pressure distribution and provide the floor slab for the basement.
A particular advantage of raft for basement at or below GWT is to provide
a water barrier.
1.2. TYPES OF RAFT:

The two basic structural forms of raft are,
1) Flat slab raft, and
2) Beam and Slab raft.
(Kurian,N, 1992)
A flat slab raft is a raft of uniform thickness supporting the columns
without the aid of beams. The flat slab type of raft is most suitable when
column loads are relatively light and spacing is relatively small and
uniform.
1
The beam slab raft consists of comparatively thinner slab
continuously spanning set of beams running through the column points in
both directions. Columns are normally located at the junction of these
beams. This type is suitable when bending stresses are high because of
large column spacing and unequal column loads.
1.3. ANALYSIS OF RAFT:

Analysis of raft by Conventional Method is done by proportioning
the raft so that centroid of the area of contact is vertical load and soil
pressure is assumed to be uniform. Analysis by this method assumes raft
as a rigid beam.
(Horvath,J.S, 1983)
Two major limitations while analyzing raft foundation by Conventional
Method are -
(1) If eccentricities are absent i.e. ex = ey = 0, the reaction pressure will be
uniform and all points on the raft will deflect by same amount.
(2) If eccentricities are present the raft will rotate as a rigid body and there
will be differential vertical movement between points on raft.
This leads to uncertainty in analysis and over design of raft
foundation. To overcome these uncertainties raft is to be analyzed as
flexible plate. This assumption gives the clear view of contact pressure
distribution. Conventional Method does not consider this contact pressure
distribution during the analysis of raft foundation.
Finite Difference Method and Finite Element Method consider these
assumptions for the analysis of raft foundation. The contact pressure is
also considered during analysis, as the raft will be subjected to bending
due to loads coming from the columns as well as the loads due to the
contact pressures or the reactive pressures. This is the case where Soil-
Structure Interaction comes in picture. The present work deals with the
analysis of raft by all three methods discussed in the subsequent chapters
ahead.
2
CHAPTER 2
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
2.1. GENERAL:
Rafts are structural elements in contact with soil. When the loads
are transmitted to soil through foundation at the interface of soil and
foundation the reactive pressures are offered by soil to the foundation.
Due to these reactive pressures the footing is subjected to bending from
above loads i.e. loads from structure and from below due to soil reaction.
In conventional designs of raft footings, these reactive pressures
are not considered during design. This effect may considerably alter the
forces and moments in the structural members. Therefore, design must be
done by considering both loads from structures as well as reactive
pressures.
These reactive pressures are the contact pressures, and are
defined as, the reactive pressures offered by soil on foundation, at the
interface between soil and foundation, due to load transmission to soil
through foundation.
2.2. SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION:

Design of raft footings by soil structure interaction approach
considers structural loads on the foundation and the soil reaction
produced by the loads on the foundation. The self weight of the foundation
and the contact pressure produced by it is not considered during the
calculations. Theoretically, the load on the foundation from structural loads
and that from soil reaction must be in static equilibrium. Therefore the soil
reaction takes any form consistent with the above loading conditions.
(Kurain,N,1981)
The actual distribution of soil reaction is the result of soil foundation
interaction and is determined by interactive analysis, involving the elastic
3
properties of both foundation and soil. Thus contact pressures are
statically indeterminate.
From the above discussions, we can define soil structure
interaction as, the effect of soil, immediately beneath and around the
structure on the response of the structure when subjected to external
loads is soil structure interaction.
When interactive analysis is considered, superstructure, foundation
and soil are considered as three components of one elastic system. The
interaction between the components of elastic system i.e. soil structure
system (superstructure, foundation and soil), under loads, depend on
interacting elastic effects on components of system. It is also seen that all
interacting systems are elastic and statically indeterminate.
2.3. CONTACT PRESSURE:

The reactive pressures are the pressures offered by the soil on the
foundation at interface between the foundation and the soil against the
loads transmitted to the soil through foundation. They may also be called
as interface stresses. Loads transmitted from column to soil must not be
concentrated but have to be distributed uniformly. In this process of load
transmission soil is subjected to soil reaction i.e. contact pressure.
Structurally soil is subjected to bending due to load from structures and
also soil reaction acting from below. Actual distribution is result of soil
foundation interaction. This can be derived or determined by interaction
analysis involving both elastic properties of soil and foundation. Therefore
these contact pressures are statically indeterminate.
(Kurain,N,1981)
Theoretically contact pressures developing between interfaces
have two components –
1) Normal.
2) Tangential.
4
Tangential forces are not called upon to resist horizontal
components of applied load as they form equilibrium among themselves.
These tangential forces can be sustained if friction between soil and
foundation is fully mobilized. Its maximum value is limited to coefficient of
friction multiplied by normal reaction. (F = µN).
If foundation surface is too smooth no tangential component will
exist or when soil is of soft consistency.
Thus, foundation exerts pressure on soil, which is equal in
magnitude but opposite in direction of contact pressure. This is the
manner in which the superimposed load on foundation is felt by the soil as
it is transmitted through the medium of foundation.
Contact pressure is determined by two approaches –
1) Theory of Elasticity.
2) Theory of Sub grade reaction.
2.3.1. Contact pressure by theory of elasticity:

Contact pressure is the result of elastic response of soil to applied
load. The best and rigorous approach to determine the magnitude and
distribution of contact pressure is from theory of elasticity. The extreme
cases that are considered are:
a. The flexibility or rigidity of the footing
b. The type of soil, and
c. The stage of loading.
Perfectly flexible footing is the one that cannot withstand any
bending moment and shear force. As it has little or no stiffness it can
undergo any amount of deflection. The flexural rigidity i.e. EI=0 which
means that it has thickness-approaching zero. A very thin membrane
represents the case of perfect flexibility.
Perfectly rigid footing is the one that can withstand enormous
bending moment and shear force with hardly any deflections. Footing
settles bodily or undergoes only rigid movements. Its flexural rigidity
5
approaches infinity. A very thick block represents the case of perfect
rigidity.
Types of soils considered are stiff clay and dry sand. The stages of
loading are the ones, which invoke the elastic response of the soil against
loading which invites ultimate response.
(1) Contact pressure under perfectly flexible footings:

The flexible footing cannot withstand any bending moment and
shear force, the loading on it must be such that reaction distribution does
not induce any moments or shear force. Therefore the reaction distribution
is identical.
Figure 2.1(a) shows, the soils considered are cohesionless soils and
Figure 2.1(b) shows, the soils as cohesive soils.
When footing is subjected to uniformly distributed load and rests on
cohesionless soil, Figure 2.1(a), the soil outside the footing is not under
pressure and has no strength. Therefore outer edge of the footing
undergoes large settlements, due to sudden loss of support felt at the
edges. Below the center of the footing the soil develops strength and
rigidity, and because of this the settlement is relatively smaller.
When footing subjected to uniformly distributed load and rests on
cohesive soils, Figure 2.1(b), the footing settlement is more at the center
and less at the edges.
(2) Contact pressure under perfectly rigid footing:

Consider a footing carrying concentrated load. The soil must be
perfectly isotropic, elastic half space. From cohesionless soil and cohesive
soils the latter satisfies the definition of elastic medium more closely, as
continuity of cohesive soils is good due to cohesion than that of
cohesionless soils.
As shown in figure 2.1(c), considering rigid footing on cohesionless
soils, the maximum intensity is at the center and minimum at the edges
6
approaching zero. The edge distribution approaches zero, due to the quick
yielding of sand at the edges as a result in the break of continuity in this
region. Settlement is uniform under rigid footings. The contact pressure
distribution is approximately parabolic for individual footing, while
ellipsoidal for mat foundation.
When we consider rigid footings on cohesive soils, the contact
pressure distribution shows less pressure at the center and more at the
edges. Settlement of rigid footing is uniform. The maximum bending
moment is induced at the center.
2.3.2. Contact pressure from the theory of sub grade reaction:

Theory of sub grade reaction is based on Winkler’s assumption;
contact pressure (p) is proportional to the deflection (y) of the system.
(Kurain,N,1981)
In this assumption soil mass is replaced by a bed of closely spaced
elastic, identical and independent springs. Thus as stated above,
pαy
p=ky
k = Constant of proportionality = Modulus of sub grade reaction.
p and y are mutually dependent.
7
(1) Contact pressure under perfectly rigid footing:
As shown in figure 2.2(a), consider rigid footings, as seen earlier
the settlement of rigid footing is uniform and as the contact pressure is
directly proportional to settlement, the contact pressure is also uniform.
The settlement diagram and the contact pressure diagram are identical.
The magnitude of contact pressure is k times that of settlement. This
contact pressure can be determined from equations of equilibrium alone,
and hence the contact pressure under rigid footing by theory of sub grade
reaction is statically determinate.
(2) Contact pressure under perfectly flexible footing:

As shown in figure 2.2(b), consider flexible footing the maximum
settlement is at the center and so the contact pressure distribution. This is
due to soil structure interaction. This problem is statically indeterminate
due to the consideration of soil footing interaction.
2.4. SOIL MODELS USED IN SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION:

The behavior of soil must be defined initially to study soil structure
interaction by which further analysis part becomes less complicated. For
this purpose soils must be modeled. As discussed earlier that in any soil
structure interaction problem soil is considered as an elastic material the
models given herewith follow this rule.
(Chandrasekaran, V.S, 2001)
The soil structure interaction can be studied by,
1) Numerical modeling.
2) Centrifuge modeling.
9
2.4.1. Numerical Models:
The numerical models give the relationship between the applied
forces and resulting displacement. These relationships are given by linear
functions, which are further used for analysis.
The numerical models used are:
1) Winkler’s model.
2) Elastic half space theory model.
1) Winkler’s model:
In this model soil mass is replaced by a bed of closely spaced
elastic, identical and independent springs. The shear resistance in soil is
neglected. The soil outside the loaded area does not undergo any
deflection.
This model is based on simple assumption that contact pressure is
proportional to deflection of elastic system.
pαy
p=ky
k = Constant of proportionality = Modulus of sub grade reaction.
p and y are mutually dependent. This mutual dependency is the essence
of interaction. If the structure in contact is vertical, contact pressure is
horizontal (kh) and if structure in contact is horizontal, contact pressure is
vertical (kv).
The value of k is dependent on material and dimensions of
foundations. From the above assumptions we can conclude that, the value
of k remains same whatever be the value of p and y.
The above assumptions are collectively referred as Winkler’s
model. It has been assumed that soil bed is considered as medium of
elastic, identical and independent springs. By elastic it ensures that there
is linear relationship between p and y. Identical ensures that the value of k
remains same whatever be the value of p and y may be. Independent
11
means that each spring deflects independently due to load coming on it,
without the interference of adjacent springs.
The value of modulus sub grade reaction can be determined
experimentally from load settlement diagram obtained plate load test.
2) Elastic half space model:

The elastic half space model for soil is superior to the Winkler’s
model, as the continuity present in the soil medium is accounted for in the
model. Also advantage of this model is its versatility in transferring
horizontal shear stresses beneath the foundation.
Soil is assumed to be homogenous, isotropic elastic and semi-
infinite. Displacement will not only occur in loaded area but also within
certain limited zones outside the loaded area.
2.4.2. Centrifuge modeling:

When scaled models are studied, it is difficult to simulate the body
forces in normal 1g fields. So to get near approximate field conditions
centrifuge technique is used.
In centrifuge technique the models are subjected to predetermined,
high acceleration levels to produce similarity conditions satisfactorily in
most situations.
The real full-scale structures are called as prototypes. The
miniatures of the prototypes, which satisfy the geometric similarities, are
called models. Thus a physical model involves a real object subjected to
forces and physical quantities such as resulting displacement and
stresses are measured. The physical measurements are made on model
and the corresponding quantities are predicted for prototype. For this
purpose two systems must be geometrically similar, and must be related
in following manner:
12
Rm = λ Rp
where,
Rm and Rp = same physical quantity pertaining to the model and the
prototype.
λ = proportionality constant.
When two systems behave similarly, knowledge of behavior of one
enables to determine the behavior of other.
Centrifuge is equipment in which models can be subjected to high
acceleration field. If model is placed at a radius r and if angular velocity is
w rad/sec, then radial acceleration is w2r. This can be visualized as the
unit weight of material and is increased by factor n = w2r/g
where, g is acceleration due to gravity.
Models in geotechnical engineering lack similitude because stress
levels in models do not match with those in prototypes. Therefore by
placing the model in the centrifuge and subjecting it to increased
acceleration field it is possible to obtain prototype stress levels in models.
Centrifuge is a convenient way of providing artificial gravity resulting from
centripetal acceleration. Centrifuge modeling can be used to study the soil
structure interaction effects on various structures.
2.4.3. Estimation of Modulus of Sub grade (k) value:

The value of modulus of sub grade reaction can be determined
experimentally or as given by Vesic’s formula.
(Kurian, N, 1981)
Experimental determination of k value:
Modulus of sub grade reaction can be determined experimentally
from the results of plate bearing tests. These are normally plotted in
pressure – settlement diagram.
13
Load or Pressure
1.25mm
Settlement
Fig.No.2.3. Plate load test results.

(Kurian, N, 1981)
If the soil is linear as assumed by Winkler the slope of load

settlement diagram is the value of k. As per load settlement diagram k has
to be calculated by one of the following,
(1) Initial tangent modulus.
(2) Tangent modulus.
(3) Secant modulus.
Initial tangent modulus means slope of the tangent to load
settlement diagram at origin. Tangent modulus means slope of tangent to
curve.
Secant modulus gives more definite value k. Secant to a curve
means line joining the point on the curve to origin. Slope of secant to
curve is called secant modulus at a specified value of either load or
settlement. k value is normally taken as secant modulus corresponding to
settlement of 1.25mm.
14
Vesic’s formula:
Vesic (1961) proposed the following relationship for computing the
value of k in analysis of raft,
k = 0.65(EsB4 / EbI)1/12(Es/1-νs2)
Es = Modulus of elasticity of soil.
EbI = Flexural rigidity of structure.
νs = Poisson’s ratio.
Since twelfth root of any term multiplied by 0.65 will approximately
be equal to 1, so for all practical purposes the Vesic’s equation reduces to,
k = Es / B (1-νs2) ------------------------(2.1)
He recommended that if a value of modulus of sub grade reaction
based equation (2.1) is used then the results of analysis on Winkler’s
model and elastic half space model would practically be same.
15
CHAPTER 3
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
3.1. GENERAL:
The analytical studies for solution of soil structure interaction
problems requires the consideration of deformational characteristics of soil
medium and the flexural behavior of the structure. By defining the stress
strain behavior of soil and the stiffness behavior of the structure, the soil
structure interaction problem is reduced to the determination of contact
pressure distribution at the soil structure interfaces. Once the contact
pressure distribution is computed, it is then possible to evaluate the
moments and forces in the structure and the stresses, strains and
deformations in the idealized supporting soil medium.
Methods used for analysis of foundation by soil structure
interaction approach are:
1) Finite Difference Method.
2) Finite Element Method.
In the present work, methods of analysis of raft foundation are

studied and a comparative study of raft, by considering soil – structure
interaction and without considering soil – structure interaction is carried
out using following methods,
1) Conventional Method.
2) Finite Difference Method.
3) Finite Element Method.
16
3.2. CONVENTIONAL METHOD:
The analysis of raft foundation by Conventional method (Rigid
beam method) is one of the simplest method of analysis used in practice.
The basic assumption is that the mat or raft will move as a rigid body
when loads are applied. Raft is considered to be infinitely rigid compared
to soil. The self-weight of raft is directly taken by the soil. For example, the
theory of elasticity would predict vertical stresses of infinite magnitude
beneath the edges of a rigid body.
(Kurain, N, 1992)
The basic assumption is that the reaction pressures are distributed
linearly across the bottom of the mat. It is assumed that the resultant of
column loads and soil pressures coincide.
3.2.1 Methodology:
Initially the column loads are calculated by the regular methods of
analysis of frames. The eccentricity if any is evaluated.
The contact pressure distribution is calculated by combined direct
bending stress formula,
Q Qe x y Qe y x
q= ± ± ----------(3.1)
A Iyy Ixx
If the resultant is not eccentric then the pressure distribution will be

uniform,
Q ----------(3.2)
q=
A
where, q = Pressure intensity.
Q = Resultant of all column loads.
A = Plan area of the raft.
ex and ey = eccentricities in X and Y directions respectively.
x and y = co-ordinate locations where soil pressures are desired.
Iyy and Ixx = moment of inertia of plan area of raft with respect to Y
and X-axis respectively.
17
Iyy = BL3/12
Ixx = LB3/12
L and B = plan dimensions of the raft.
The maximum contact pressure distribution obtained must be less

than the safe bearing capacity of the soil. The slab is divided into strips
and each strip is considered as a rigid beam subjected to contact
pressures and column loads. The bending moment and shear force
diagrams are then obtained.
The settlement of the raft is obtained by,
2
C q B(1 − ν s )
∆ i = d net --------------(3.3)
Es
Where, qnet = Net intensity of pressure
= Average value taken along one line.
Cd = Shape and rigidity factor.
νs = Poisson’s ratio of soil.
Es = Elastic modulus of soil.
Each strip is designed individually for the bending moments
calculated as before and the actual reinforcement provided must be twice
the area of steel obtained by conventional method, as per National
Building Code regulations.
3.3. FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD:

Finite Difference method is numerical method used to calculate the
deflections and moments at various locations selected on the grid. The raft
is considered as flexible plate.
(Milovic, S.D, 1998)
It is assumed that the deflections of the plate are small compared to
the thickness of the plate. For the purpose of analysis the loads on the raft
are calculated from the frame analysis, and then the by using plate
bending equation are evaluated deflections of raft and the moments.
18
3.3.1. Assumptions:
During the analysis of raft by finite difference method it is assumed that,
(Timoshenko, S.P and Krieger, S, 1959)
(1) Load acting on the plate is normal to the surface of the plate.
(2) Deflections of the plate are small compared to the thickness of the
plate.
(3) It is assumed that there are no horizontal shearing forces acting on the
plate.
(4) As there are no forces normal to the sides of element so any strain on
the middle plane occurring during bending is neglected.
(5) In addition to the moments Mx and My, twisting moments, Mxy, are
also considered in pure bending.
3.3.2. Finite Difference Plate Bending Equation:

The basic plate bending equation is,
(Bowels, J.E, 1988)
∂4w ∂4w ∂4w q
+2 2 2 + 4 = ------------(3.4)
∂x 4 ∂x ∂y ∂y D
where, q = Q/λx λy
Q = Column Load.
λx and λy = longer side and shorter side of the grid respectively.
D = Flexural rigidity of plate = Ech3/12 (1-νc2)
Ec = Modulus of Elasticity of concrete.
νc = Poisson’s ratio of concrete.
h = Thickness of plate. w = deflection.
The grid pattern and numbering system for finite difference method
is as shown in the figure3.1. This plate bending equation is then converted
to finite difference equation as below.
19
Referring the Figure 3.1. at point 0, we have,
[∂2w/∂x2] 0 = 1/λx2 [w1 – 2w0 + w3]
[∂2w/∂x2]1 = 1/λx2 [w5 – 2w1 + w0]
[∂2w/∂x2] 3 = 1/λx2 [w0 – 2w3 + w9].
[∂4w/∂x4]0 = 1/λx4{[∂2w/∂x2]1 - 2[∂2w/∂x2]0 - [∂2w/∂x2]3}

= 1/λx4 [w5 – 2w1 + w0 – 2(w1 – 2w0 + w2) + w0 – 2w3 + w9]
[∂4w/∂x4] 0 = 1/λx4 [6 w0 – 4(w1 + w3) + w5 + w9 ] --------------------(3.5)
Similar equation for ∂4w/∂y4 can be obtained as,
[∂4w/∂y4] 0= 1/λy4[ 6 w0 – 4(w2 + w4 ) + w7 + w11 ] -----------(3.6)
and for ∂4w/∂x2∂y2 at point 0,
[∂4w/∂x2∂y2] 0 = 1/ λx2λy2 [4 w0 – 2(w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 )

+ w6 + w8 + w10 + w12] ------(3.7)
Combining equations (3.5), (3.6), (3.7) and writing it in form of

equation (3.4), we have,
1
[6w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 3 + w 5 + w 9 ] + 21 2 [8w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 2 + w 3 + w 4 ) + 2(w 6 + w 8 + w 10 + w 12 )]
λx 4 λx λy
1 q
+ 4 [6w 0 − 4(w 2 + w 4 ) + w 7 + w 11 ] =
λy D
-----------(3.8)
From equation (3.8) we get equation in terms of unknown values

i.e. deflection at node 0. Similarly by evaluating equations for all the nodes
on the grid a set of simultaneous equations are obtained. These
simultaneous equations are solved by Gauss Elimination Method and
deflections at the prescribed points on the grid are calculated.
21
From the values of deflections obtained we can evaluate the
moments at the respective nodes are evaluated by using following
formulae,
Mx = - D [∂2w/∂x2 + ν∂2w/∂y2]
My = - D [∂2w/∂y2 + ν∂2w/∂x2] --------------(3.9)
Mxy = D (1 - ν)[∂2w/∂x ∂y]
3.4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS:

The basis of finite element method is representation of a body or a
structure by an assemblage of subdivisions called Finite Elements. These
elements are considered interconnected at joints, which are called nodes
or nodal points. Simple functions are chosen to approximate the
distribution or variation of actual displacement over each finite element.
Such assumed functions are called displacement function or displacement
models. So the final solution will yield the approximate displacement at
discrete locations in the body, at the nodal points.
(Desai. C.S and Abel. J.F, 2000)
The displacement models are expressed in terms of polynomials or
trigonometric functions. Since polynomials offer ease in mathematical
manipulations, they are employed commonly in Finite Element
applications.
A variational principle of mechanics, such as principle of minimum
Potential Energy, is usually employed to obtain the set of equilibrium
equations for each element.
22
3.4.1. Kirchoff’s Plate Theory:
In case of raft foundation, raft is considered as plate resting on soil.
The plate follow Kirchoff’s plate theory, and accordingly certain
assumptions are made as follows:
(Bathe.K-J, 1997)
1) Structure is thin in one direction.
2) The stress through the thickness i.e. perpendicular to the mid surface
of the plate is zero.
3) Material particles that are originally on the straight line perpendicular to
the mid surface of the plate remain on the straight line during
deformation.
4) Shear deformations are neglected and the straight line remains
perpendicular to mid surface during deformation.
3.4.2. Sub-Structure Method:

In soil structure interaction problem the basic unknowns to be
determined are raft settlements, forces in structure and raft and contact
pressure distribution at the raft-soil interface. The contact pressure
distribution will depend on structure-raft interaction and raft-soil
interaction. Therefore to evaluate the actual contact pressure distribution
full interactive analysis is carried out. This can be achieved precisely by
Finite Element Method. During the finite element analysis of the system,
structure, soil and raft are considered as elements of one single system.
(Hain. S.J and Lee. I.K, 1974)
The moments and shearing forces in the raft are sensitive to
column loads, which are in turn influenced by the settlement profile of the
raft. Therefore it is necessary to treat structure, raft and soil as a part of
one single system. The column loads are calculated by frame analysis.
The moments created by the column loads cannot be ignored as they
have great influence on settlement of raft foundation.
23
The substructure finite element analysis is considered here, as it is
the most efficient, flexible and effective technique. In this method stiffness
matrix of structure and supporting soil is incorporated into stiffness matrix
of raft.
Force displacement relation for structure and raft,
[P] = [K] [U] --------------- (3.10)
[K] = Raft stiffness matrix.
[U] = 
Ub  P 
 , [P] =  b 
 Ui   Pi 
[Ub] = Boundary displacements common to super structure and soil.
[Ui] = interior displacements of super structure.
[Pb] and [Pi] = set of external forces.
K bb K bi  Ub  Pb 
K = ---------(3.11)
 ib K ii   Ui   Pi 
By partial inversion on above equation,

[Kbb - Kbi Kii-1 Kib] [Ub] = [Pb] – [Kbi Kii-1] [Pi] -------(3.12)
This equation is free body equilibrium equation in matrix form for
the boundary nodes of superstructure (structure and raft).
[Kbb - Kbi Kii-1 Kib] = Boundary stiffness matrix.
[Kbb] = partition of structure raft stiffness matrix which refers to
boundary nodes.
[Kbi] = partition of structure raft stiffness matrix which refers to
boundary forces due to interior displacements.
[Kii] = partition of structure raft stiffness matrix which refers to
interior nodes.
[Kib] = partition of structure raft stiffness matrix which refers to
interior forces due to boundary nodes.
24
Force displacement relation for supporting medium i.e. soil,
[Ks] [δ] = [F] --------------- (3.13)
[Ks] = Supporting medium stiffness matrix.
[δ] = 
Ub  F 
 , [F] =  b 
δ s  Fs 
K s bb K s bi  Ub  Fb 
K = ---------------- (3.14)
 s ib K s ii   δ s  Fs 
Combining equations (3.12) and (3.14).

K sbb + K bb − K biK ii −1K ib K sbi  Ub  Fb + Pb − K biK ii Pb 
−1
   =   -----(3.15)
 K sib K sii   δ s   Fs 
This method does not make use of interface elements and so the
calculation part is reduced. This is most efficient method used in soil-
structure interaction problems.
3.4.3. Discretization:
The process of discretizing or subdividing a continuum is an
exercise of engineering judgment. The number, shape, size and
configuration of elements should be such that the original body is
simulated as closely as possible. The general objective of discretization is
to divide the body into elements sufficiently small so that the simple
displacement models can adequately approximate the true solution.
(Desai.C.S. and Abel.J.F, 2000)
The raft in this work is considered as two dimensional plane stress
problem and thus is discretized into two-dimensional rectangular plate-
bending elements.
25
3.4.4. Displacement Models:
The basic philosophy of finite element method is piecewise
approximation. In this method, we approximate a solution to a complicated
problem is approximated by subdividing the region of interest and
representing the solution within each subdivision by a relatively simple
function. The simple functions, which approximate the displacements for
each element, are called displacement models, displacement functions or
interpolation functions.
(Desai, C.S. and Abel, J.F, 2000)
Polynomial is the most common form of displacement model that is
used in finite element formulation. It is easy to handle the mathematics of
polynomials in formulating the desired equations for various elements and
in performing digital computations. The use of polynomials permits us to
differentiate and integrate with relative ease. Also, the polynomial of
arbitrary order permits a recognizable approximation to the true solution. A
polynomial of infinite order corresponds to an exact solution, but, for
practical purpose the polynomials are limited to one of finite order.
Displacement is considered as polynomial function,
u = α1 + α 2 x + α 3 y + α 4 xy + α 5 x2 +--------etc.
Numerical solution must converge or tend to converge to the exact
solution of the problem. In finite element analysis, displacement
formulation gives upper bound to true stiffness of the structure i.e.
stiffness coefficients have higher values than the exact solution. Therefore
simulated structure deforms less than actual structure. So if the finite
element mesh is made finer is obtained exact solution.
The polynomial must satisfy certain convergence requirements,
(1) Displacement model must be continuous within the elements and
displacement model must be compatible between adjacent elements.
(2) Displacement models must include rigid body displacements of the
element.
27
(3) Displacement models must include constant strain states of the
element.
The formulation satisfying the first criteria is compatible or conforming.
Elements meeting both second and third criteria are complete. It should
ensured that the displacement model will allow continuous non-zero
derivatives of higher order appearing in potential energy functional. All
three conditions must be satisfied but practical results for elements that
satisfy only third criteria appear to converge acceptably.
The inter element compatibility must be satisfied and are imposed
not only on the displacement quantities but also on their derivatives. This
is to ensure that the plate remains continuous and does not kink.
Therefore at each node three conditions of continuity are imposed. The
three conditions of inter element compatibility are –
(1) Same isotropic displacement model is used in both the elements.
(2) For each element the displacement on the interface must depend only
on the nodal displacement occurring on that interface.
(3) Inter element nodal compatibility must be enforced.
Models satisfying compatibility for displacement does not
necessarily yield continuity for slopes or derivatives of displacement
across element interface. Continuity in slopes is achieved when they are
considered in the model as nodal degrees of freedom. So this condition
must be satisfied in terms of slopes if slope compatibility is to occur.
3.4.5. Variational Formulation:

Principle of virtual work is considered as the basis of the variational
formulations. The majority of theorems are called minimum principles
because the stationary value of the functional can be shown to be a
minimum.
28
The Total potential energy of an elastic body is defined as,
π = U + Wp ---------------(3.16)
where, U = strain energy
Wp = potential of applied loads.
Because the forces are assumed to remain constant during the
variation of the displacements, we can relate the variation of the work
done by the loads (W) and of potential of the loads can be related as
follows –
δW = - δ Wp -------------(3.17)
The principle of minimum potential energy is,

δπ = δ U + δWp
δπ = δU - δ W
δπ = 0 -------------(3.18)
The principle and its accompanying conditions can be stated as,
“Of all possible displacement configurations a body can assume which
satisfy compatibility and the constraints or kinematic boundary conditions,
the configurations satisfying equilibrium makes the potential energy
assumed a minimum value.”
The important point to note here is, a variation of displacements is
considered while forces and stresses are assumed constant. Moreover,
the resulting equations are equilibrium equations.
The total potential energy of a linearly elastic body can be
expressed as the sum of the internal work (strain energy due to internal
stresses) and the potential of the body forces surface tractions.
π = ∫∫∫v dU(u,v,w) - ∫∫∫ v (Xu + Yv + Zw) dV

- ∫∫ s1 ( Tx u + Ty v + Tz w) ds1 . ------------(3.19)
29
Where, s1 = surface of body along which surface applied loads are
prescribed.
dU(u,v,w) = strain energy per unit volume.
- ∫∫∫ v (Xu + Yv + Zw) dV - ∫∫ s1 ( Tx u + Ty v + Tz w) ds1 = work done by

constant external forces.
X, Y, Z = body forces.
Tx , Ty , Tz = surface applied loads.
dU = ½ { ε }T { σ} = ½ { ε }T [C] { ε }
π = ∫∫∫v [ ½ { ε }T [C] { ε } - 2{ u }T { X } ] dV - ∫∫ s1 { u }T{ Tx } ds1

-----------(3.20)
where, {u}T = {u, v, w}
{X} T = {X, Y, Z}
{Tx} T = {Tx, Ty, Tz}
Formula 3.20. for evaluation of stiffness matrix.
Evaluation of element stiffness matrix –
The displacement model is formulated in terms of
interpolation function,
Element displacement,
{u} = [N] {q} ------------(3.21)
{u} = The displacements at any point within the element.
{q} = Displacements at nodes
[N] = Shape function obtained by isoparametric formulation.
Element strains,
{ε} = [B] {q} ------------(3.22)
{ε} = Vector of relevant strain components at an arbitrary point
within the finite element.
[B] = Strain displacement matrix.
30
These strains are expressed in terms of some combination of
derivatives of the nodal displacement, {q}. Since nodal displacements are
functions of spatial co-ordinates these derivatives must be formed in terms
of matrix [N].
Further substituting these values in equation (3.20), we have,
π = ∫∫∫v [ ½ { q }T [B] T [C] { q } [B] - 2{ q }T [N] T [X] ]dV

- ∫∫ s1 { q }T[N] T{Tx} ds1 ------------(3.23)
V = volume of the body.
s1 = portion of body over which surface traction is specified.
Applying variational principle to the above equation,
{ δq }T { ∫∫∫v [ [B] T[C] [B] {q} - [N] T [X] ]dV

- ∫∫ s1 [N] T{Tx} ds1 }= 0 -----------(3.24)
[k] {q} = {Q} ---------------(3.25)

[k] = Element stiffness matrix = ∫∫∫v [ [B] T[C] [B] dV
{Q} = Load matrix = ∫∫∫v [N] T [X] dV + ∫∫ s1 [N] T{Tx} ds1
From the equation 3.25. general formula for element characteristics

is obtained. The formulation of stiffness and load matrix can be obtained
by Numerical integration.
3.4.6. Jacobian Operator:

In finite element analysis, as given in equation (3.26.), [k] and [Q]
matrices are to be evaluated. These can be found out from [B] matrix,
which is defined in terms of derivatives of [N]. [N] Matrix is defined in
terms of local co-ordinates. Therefore it is necessary to devise some
means of expressing global derivatives in terms of local derivatives. Also,
31
elements of volume over which integration are carried out, needs to be
expressed in terms of local co-ordinates with appropriate change in limits
of integration.
(Zienkiewicz.O.C, 1997)
Consider two dimensional plate bending problem,
Let ζ and η be the local co-ordinates and x and y be the global co-
ordinates, we have,
∂Ni ∂Ni ∂x ∂Ni ∂y
= + ---------------(3.26)
∂ζ ∂x ∂ζ ∂y ∂ζ
Similar relation can be devised for η co-ordinates.

∂Ni ∂Ni ∂x ∂Ni ∂y
= + ---------------(3.27)
∂η ∂x ∂η ∂y ∂η
Writing the above equations in matrix form,

 ∂Ni /∂ζ   ∂x/∂ζ ∂y/∂ζ  ∂Ni /∂x 
∂N /∂η = ∂x/∂η ∂x/∂η ∂N /∂y  --------------------------(3.28)
 i    i 
 ∂Ni /∂ζ  ∂Ni /∂x 

∂N /∂η = J∂N /∂y  --------------------------(3.29)
 i   i 
J is called Jacobian operator or Jacobian Matrix and is evaluated in

terms of local co-ordinates.
To transform the variables and the region with respect to which the
integration is made a standard process is used which involves the
determinant of J. Therefore integration made over element area becomes,
dx dy = det J dζ dη -----------------(3.30)
32
3.4.7. Numerical Integration:
To calculate the element stiffness matrix to integrate the elements
of the matrix are to be integrated individually. There are two possibilities –
(1) Numerical Integration
(2) Explicit multiplication and term-by-term integration.
The second possibility is exhaustive and time taking so various
Numerical integration schemes are used. Gauss Quadrature scheme is
most commonly used.
(Bathe. K-J, 1997)
The basic integration schemes, such as, Trapezoidal rule,
Simpson’s rule use equally spaced sampling points. These methods are
effective when measurements of an unknown function to be integrated are
taken at certain intervals. But in Finite element methods the location and
values of sampling points as well as the weights are unknown, so a
numerical integration scheme, which optimizes both the sampling points
and the weights, is to be used. This can be done using Gauss Quadrature
rule.
The basic assumption for Gauss Quadrature rule is,
a b
0∫ 0∫ F (ζ, η) dζdη = Σ Σ αi,j F(ζi,ηj) ------------------------(3.31)
where, αi,j = Weights.
ζi,ηj = sampling points.
During this procedure to change the intervals of integration from
(a,b) to (-1,1).
a b
0∫ 0∫ F(ζ,η) dζdη = (ab/4) 1∫-11∫-1 F(ζ,η) dζdη
It is important to select the proper order of integration. If higher
order of integration is used all matrices will be evaluated accurately. If the
order of integration is too low the matrices evaluated are not accurate. So
it is important to devise the appropriate order of integration to reduce or
minimize the errors.
Order of integration = 2(p – m).
where, p = order of polynomial. m = order of differential.
33
3.4.8. Boundary Conditions:
Finite Element problem is not completely specified unless boundary
conditions are prescribed. A loaded body or structure is free to experience
unlimited rigid body motion unless some supports or kinematic constraints
are imposed that will ensure the equilibrium of loads. These constraints
are Boundary Conditions.
There are basically two types of boundary conditions,
(1) Geometric boundary conditions.
(2) Natural boundary conditions.
In finite element method only geometric boundary conditions are to
be specified, the natural boundary conditions are implicitly satisfied in the
solution procedure as long as we employ a suitable valid variational
principle is employed.
3.4.9. Global Stiffness and Load Matrix:

The direct stiffness method is employed universally for assembling
the algebraic equations in finite element application. The boundary
conditions prescribed or derived are applied to the element stiffness
matrices and then these reduced element stiffness matrices are
assembled together to obtain the global stiffness matrix.
(Bathe.K-J, 1997)
The individual stiffness and loads are added directly to locations in
overall matrices [k] and [Q], in conformity with the requirement of one to
one correspondence between the nodes of the element and those of
assemblage. The values of deflections are then obtained by solving the
equation by Gauss Elimination Method.
34
CHAPTER 4
ANALYTICAL WORK
Analysis of two bays – two-storied building is carried out. Raft footing of

size 8m x 10m is provided for this building.
The properties of structure and material used for construction are,
All beam sizes = 230 mm x 380 mm
All column sizes = 230 mm x 380 mm
Slab thickness = 125 mm
Unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3
Wall thickness = 230mm
Unit weight of wall = 19.5 kN/m3
Height of parapet wall = 1.5 m
Floor Height = 3 m
Grade of concrete – M20 Grade of steel – Fe415
Econcrete = 5700 (fck) 0.5 νconcrete = 0.15
Soil - Medium dense sand (sandy clay)
Esoil = 40000 kN/m2 νsoil = 0.30.
Frame load analysis:

The building frame is made of reinforced concrete. The openings in
the frame are filled with 230mm-thickness brick wall. Parapet wall is
constructed along the periphery of the structure on the top floor. The slabs
transmit loads to the beams. The slabs adopted in this problem are two
way slabs, so, the load transmitted on the beams is as shown on the
Figure 4.4,
35
4m
45°
5m
Fig No.4.4. Load transmission to supporting beams.
The beams further transfer the loads to the columns and columns
to the raft. The loads transmitted to the raft in this problem are as shown in
the Figure 4.3.
4.1. CONVENTIONAL METHOD:

The dimensions of the raft are 8m x 10m, with X and Y-axis as
shown in Figure 4.1. Taking moments of the applied loads along X-axis
and Y-axis, x and y are estimated.
x = Distance from the Y-axis to the point of application of the resultant.
y = Distance from the X-axis to the point of application of the resultant.
Eccetricities are then obtained as,
ex = eccentricity in the direction of X axis = B/2 -x.
ey = eccentricity in the direction of Y axis = L/2 -y.
where, B = width of raft.
L = length of the raft.
38
From the formula given in section 3.2.1, we have,
Q Qe x y Qe y x
q= ± ±
A I yy I xx
Choose the cartesian co-ordinates (0,0) at the center of the raft and
decide the sign conventions in above equation. Putting the values of x and
y as per the co-ordinates, contact pressure at each point where columns
are located on the raft are estimated
Deflections beneath each column points are obtained by formula
given in section 3.2.1,
2
C q B(1 − ν s )
∆ i = d net
Es
The value of Cd is obtained from the table given in Appendix-A.
The results obtained from the above calculations are shown
in the Table 4.1.below,
Table No. 4.1. Pressure Distribution and Deflections at various
locations on raft.
Locations Pressure Distribution Deflections
kN/m2 mm
A 95.167 11.604
B 95.167 15.415
C 95.167 11.604
D 70.820 12.502
E 70.820 17.529
F 70.820 12.502
G 46.473 5.667
H 46.473 7.527
I 46.473 5.667
39
The graphs below show the pressure distribution and deflection
profile of the raft.
Points
ABC
ADG BEH CFI
Pressure Diitribution
DEF
0 GHI
20
40 46.473 46.473 46.473
60
70.82 70.82 70.82
80
100 95.167 95.167 95.167
Graph No. 4.1. Pressure Distribution along ABC, DEF and GHI.
Points
ABC
ADG BEH CFI DEF
0 GHI
5 5.667 5.667
7.527
10
11.604 11.604
15
12.502 15.415 12.502
20 17.529
Graph No. 4.2. Deflection profile along ABC, DEF and GHI.
40
Points
ADG
ABC DEF GHI BEH
0 CFI
20
40
46.473
46.473
60
70.82
70.82
80
100 95.167
95.167
Graph No. 4.3. Pressure Distribution along ADG, BEH and CFI.
Points
ADG
ABC DEF GHI BEH
0 CFI
5 5.667
5.667
7.527
10
11.604
11.604 12.502
12.502
15 15.415
17.529
20
Graph No. 4.4. Deflection profile along ADG, BEH and CFI.
41
4.2. FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD:
4.2.1. Without considering Soil-Structure Interaction:

When soil structure interaction is not considered. The grid pattern is
selected by dividing the raft into rectangular areas as shown in the Figure
4.5.
L = 10m.
B = 8m.
λx = 2 m.
λy = 2.5 m.
Econcrete = 5700 (fck) 0.5 = 25.5 x 106 kN/m2
νconcrete = 0.15
D = Ech3/12 (1-νc2) = 17385.29
From finite difference plate bending equation, section 3.3.2, we can

write equation for deflection at 0 as,
1
4
[6w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 3 + w 5 + w 9 ] + 21 2 [8w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 2 + w 3 + w 4 ) + 2(w 6 + w 8 + w 10 + w 12 )]
λx λx λy
1 q
+ 4 [6w 0 − 4(w 2 + w 4 ) + w 7 + w 11 ] =
λy D
Where q = Q/ λx λy
Q = Column load at 0 = 1694.813kN
λx = width of rectangular area in X – direction = 2 m.
λy = width of rectangular area in Y – direction =2.5 m.
So we can find the algebraic equation for deflections at point 0.

Similarly we can find the algebraic equations at various points on the grid.
Solving, these simultaneous equations by Gauss Elimination
method we can obtain deflections at various points on the grid.
42
The graphs below show the deflection profiles along the raft length and
widths.
Table No. 4.2. Deflections at various locations on raft without SSI.
Node Deflection
Number mm
0 21.3
1 9
2 7.4
3 9
4 7.4
6 1.8
8 1.8
10 1.8
12 1.8
Nodal Points
'17--9-16 10-3-8 4-0-2 12-1-6 20-5-13'
0 0 0
1.8 1.8
5
7.4
Deflection
9 9 17-10-4-12-20
10
9-3-0-1-5
15
16-8-2-6-13
20 21.3
25
Graph No. 4.5. Deflection profile along 17-10-4-12-20, 9-3-0-1-5 and

16-8-2-6-13.
44
Nodal Points
'18-11-19 10-4-12 3-0-1 8-2-6 15-7-14'
0 0 0
1.8 1.8
5
Deflection
7.4 9 7.4 18-10-3-8-15

10
11-4-0-2-7
15
19-12-1-6-14
20 21.3
25
Graph No. 4.6. Deflection profile along 18-10-3-8-15,11-4-0-2-7 and

19-12-1-6-14.
4.2.2. Considering Soil-Structure Interaction on Winkler’s Soil model:

When soil structure interaction is considered using Winkler’s soil model.
The grid pattern is selected by dividing the raft into rectangular areas as
shown in the figure 4.5.
L = 10m.
B = 8m.
λx = 2 m.
λy = 2.5 m.
νconcrete = 0.15
D = Ech3/12 (1-νc2) = 17385.29
Esoil = 40000 kN/m2 νsoil = 0.30.
From finite difference plate bending equation, section 3.3.2, the
equation for deflection at 0 is,
45
1
4
[6w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 3 + w 5 + w 9 ] + 21 2 [8w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 2 + w 3 + w 4 ) + 2(w 6 + w 8 + w 10 + w 12 )]
λx λx λy
1 q Q
+ 4 [6w 0 − 4(w 2 + w 4 ) + w 7 + w 11 ] = +
λy D λxλyD
Vesic (1961) proposed the following relationship for

computing the value of k in analysis of raft,
k = Es / B (1-νs2)
where, q = -k0 w0
k0 = Spring stiffness at point 0 = 5128.205 kN/m3.
As it is assumed that spring is present beneath each node so
stiffness of spring beneath each node depends on the contributing area of
the grid.
For point 0, the contributing area = 4 x (2/2) x (2.5/2) = 5 sqm.
Therefore,
k0 = Spring stiffness at point 0 = 5128.205 x 5 =25641.03 kN/m.
The contributing area for each node is obtained as shown in the figure 4.6.
So the algebraic equation for deflections at point 0 is found out.

Similarly the algebraic equations at various points on the grid are
obtained.
method deflections at various points on the grid are obtained.
46
Table No. 4.3. Deflection and Contact Pressure at various
nodes on the grid considering SSI (Winkler’s Model).
Node Number Deflection Contact Pressure

mm kN/m2
0 8.1 20.769
1 3.4 8.717
2 2.8 7.179
3 3.4 8.717
4 2.8 7.179
6 -1 -
8 -1 -
10 -1 -
12 -1 -
The graphs below show the deflection profiles along the raft length
and widths.
Nodal Points
-2
'17--9-16 10-3-8 4-0-2 12-1-6 20-5-13'
-1 -1
0 0 0
Deflection
2 17-10-4-12-20
2.8
4 3.4 3.4
9-3-0-1-5
6 16-8-2-6-13
8 8.1
10

16-8-2-6-13.
48
Nodal Points
-5
'17--9-16 10-3-8 4-0-2 12-1-6 20-5-13'
0 0 0 0 0
Contact Pressure
Distribution
5 17-10-4-12-20
7.179
10 8.717 8.717 9-3-0-1-5
15 16-8-2-6-13
20 20.769
25
Graph No. 4.8. Contact Pressure Distribution along17-10-4-12-20,

9-3-0-1-5 and 16-8-2-6-13.
Nodal Points
-2
'18-11-19 10-4-12
-1 3-0-1 8-2-6
-1 15-7-14'
0 0 0
2
Deflection
2.8 2.8 18-10-3-8-15

3.4
4 11-4-0-2-7
19-12-1-6-14
6
8 8.1
10

19-12-1-6-14.
49
Nodal Points
-5
'18-11-19 10-4-12 3-0-1 8-2-6 15-7-14'
0 0 0 0 0
5
Deflection
7.179 7.179 18-10-3-8-15

8.717
10 11-4-0-2-7
15 19-12-1-6-14
20 20.769
25
Graph No. 4.10. Contact Pressure Distribution along18-10-3-8-15,

11-4-0-2-7 and 19-12-1-6-14.
4.2.3. Considering Soil-Structure Interaction on Linear Elastic Soil model:

When soil structure interaction is considered using linear elastic soil
model, the grid pattern is selected by dividing the raft into rectangular
areas as shown in the figure 4.5.
L = 10m.
B = 8m.
λx = 2 m.
λy = 2.5 m.
νconcrete = 0.15
D = Ech3/12 (1-νc2) = 17385.29
Esoil = 40000 kN/m2 νsoil = 0.30.
50
From finite difference plate bending equation, section 3.3.2, the
equation for deflection at 0 is,
1
4
[6w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 3 + w 5 + w 9 ] + 21 2 [8w 0 − 4(w 1 + w 2 + w 3 + w 4 ) + 2(w 6 + w 8 + w 10 + w 12 )]
λx λx λy
1 q Q
+ 4 [6w 0 − 4(w 2 + w 4 ) + w 7 + w 11 ] = +
λy D λxλyD
Where q = -k0 w0
k = Spring stiffness at point 0.
The assumptions made for linear elastic soil model are,

(1) The foundation has the properties of semi-infinite elastic
body.
(2) Plate rests on sub grade without friction i.e. smooth base.
From dynamic tests k value is,

k = Es / 2(1-νs2).
Here the k value does not depend on contributing area and remains
same for all the nodes on the grid.
So the algebraic equation for deflections at point 0 is found out.
Similarly the algebraic equations at various points on the grid are
obtained.
method deflections at various points on the grid are obtained.
51
Table No. 4.4. Deflection at various nodes on the grid considering SSI on
Linear Elastic Soil Model.
Node Number Deflection

mm
0 8.9
1 4.3
2 3.7
3 4.3
4 3.7
6 -1
8 -1
10 -1
12 -1
The graphs below show the deflection profiles along the raft
length and widths.
Nodal Points
-2
'17--9-16 10-3-8 4-0-2 12-1-6 20-5-13'
-1 -1
0 0 0
Deflection
2 17-10-4-12-20
4 4.3 3.7 4.3 9-3-0-1-5
6 16-8-2-6-13
8
8.9
10

16-8-2-6-13.
52
Nodal Points
-2
'18-11-19 10-4-12
-1 3-0-1 8-2-6
-1 15-7-14'
0 0 0
2
Deflection
18-10-3-8-15
4 3.7 3.7 11-4-0-2-7
4.3
19-12-1-6-14
6
8
8.9
10

19-12-1-6-14.
4.3. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD:

For analyzing raft foundation, the problem is considered as plane
stress problem, as the thickness in Z – direction is very small. Raft is
assumed as plate resting on soil. The plate follows Kirchoff’s plate theory
and the assumptions made are valid for raft foundation. Sub-structure
method of finite element analysis is used for solving the problem.
4.3.1. Discretization:
Raft is divided into rectangular elements each of width (a= 2m) and
length (b= 2.5m). The discretization is done is similar to that of finite
difference method, so as to compare the deflections obtained by both
methods. Total raft is now divided into 16 elements.
The discretization is as shown in the figure 4.7.
53
4.3.2. Nodal Degrees of freedom and Interpolation function:
Many researchers found that solving the problem with 3 degrees of
freedom at each node may solve the problem but the inter element
compatibility criteria is not satisfied. So introduction of additional degree of
freedom is required.
So Bogner et al, 1965, gave the formulation of interpolation function
with 4 DOF at each node.
DOF at each node,
w, θx = ∂w/∂x, θy = ∂w/∂y, θxy = ∂2w/∂x ∂y,
giving total 16 DOF for each element.
Cubic Hermitian polynomial is used as interpolation model.
Nx1 = 1- 3ζ2 + 2 ζ3.
Nx2 = ζ2 (3 - 2 ζ).
Nx3 = aζ (ζ -1) 2.
Nx4 = aζ2 (ζ - 1).
ζ = x/a
0<ζ < 1.
∂ /∂x = (1/a) ∂ /∂ζ.
Ny1 = 1- 3η2 + 2 η3.
Ny2 = η2(3 - 2 η).
Ny3 = aη (η -1) 2.
Ny4 = aη2 (η - 1).
η = y/b
0<η < 1.
∂ /∂y = (1/b) ∂ /∂η.
54
By using shape functions we have defined, the displacement model
for plate bending element is,
w = Nx1 Ny1 w1 + Nx2 Ny1 w2 + Nx2 Ny2 w3 + Nx1 Ny2 w4
+ Nx3 Ny1 θx1 + Nx4 Ny1 θx2 + Nx4 Ny2 θx3 + Nx3 Ny2 θx4
+ Nx1 Ny3 θy1 + Nx2 Ny3 θy2 + Nx2 Ny4 θy3 + Nx1 Ny4 θy4
+ Nx3 Ny3 θxy1 + Nx4 Ny3 θxy2 + Nx4 Ny4 θxy3 + Nx3 Ny4 θxy4.
= [N] [q]. -----------(4.1)
After obtaining the shape functions we can obtain the element

strain displacement matrix as,
 ∂ 2 w/∂x 2 
[ε ] =  ∂ 2 w/∂y 2 
∂ 2 w/∂x∂y 
 
= [B] [q] -----------------------------(4.2)
The element stiffness matrix can be further obtained,
[k] = Element stiffness matrix = ∫∫∫v [B] T[C] [B] dV.
{Q} = Load matrix = ∫∫∫v [N] T [X] dV + ∫∫ s1 [N] T{Tx} ds1.
For each element the element stiffness matrix and load matrix are
as given in the form below,
[k] {q} = {Q} -------------------------------(4.3)
4.3.3. Jacobain and Numerical Integration:

The Jacobian can be obtained as discussed in the section 3.4.6,
a 0
J=  
 0 b
Det J = ab.
The order of numerical integration is selected as in section 3.4.7,
Order of integration = 2(p – m).
If, p = order of polynomial = 3.
m = order of differential = 2.
Order of integration = 2(3 – 2) = 2.
56
In this problem the order of integration is 2 x 2. Obtaining the
values of weights and sampling points from the table given in Appendix-C
we can obtain the element stiffness matrix.
a b
0∫ 0∫ F(ζ,η) dζdη = Σ Σ αi,j F(ζi,ηj)
where, αi,j = Weights.
4.3.4. Boundary Conditions:

We need to specify only geometric boundary conditions; the natural
boundary conditions are implicitly satisfied in the solution procedure as
long as we employ a suitable valid variational principle.
The boundary conditions are as below,
w = 0, θx = 0, θy = 0, θxy = 0.
So these conditions are applied at nodes on the boundary
(1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11,15,16,20,21,22,23,24,25). These boundary conditions
are applied during the derivation of element stiffness matrices.
4.3.5. Global Stiffness Matrix:

The direct stiffness method is employed universally for assembling
the algebraic equations in finite element application. The boundary
conditions prescribed or derived are applied to the element stiffness
matrices and then these reduced element stiffness matrices are
assembled together to obtain the global stiffness matrix. The individual
stiffness and loads are added directly to locations in overall matrices [k]
and [Q], in conformity with the requirement of one to one correspondence
between the nodes of the element and those of assemblage. The values
of deflections are then obtained by solving the equation by Gauss
Elimination Method.
57
4.3.6. Without considering soil-structure interaction:
The deflections obtained by solving the problem by finite element
method are shown below.
Table No. 4.5. Deflection at various nodes on the grid without
considering soil structure interaction by FEM.
mm
13 24
14 12
18 8
12 12
8 8
19 5
17 4
7 4
9 4
58
Nodal Points
'6-11-16 7-12-17 8-13-18 9-14-19 10-15-20'
0 0 0
5 4 4
8
Deflection
10 6-7-8-9-10
12 12
15 11-12-13-14-15
20 16-17-18-19-20
25 24
30
Graph No. 4.13. Deflection profile along 6-7-8-9-10, 11-12-13-14-15

and 16-17-18-19-20.
Nodal Points
'2-3-4 7-8-9 12-13-14 17-18-19 22-23-24'
0 0 0
5 4 4
8 8
Deflection
10 2-7-12-17-22
12
15 3-8-13-18-23
20 4-9-14-19-24
25 24
30
Graph No. 4.14. Deflection profile along 27-2-12-17-22,3-8-13-18-23

and 4-9-14-19-24.
59
4.3.7. Considering Soil-Structure Interaction on Winkler’s Soil Model:
It is assumed that spring is present beneath each node so stiffness
of spring beneath each node depends on the contributing area of the grid.
The spring stiffness is estimated as obtained for FDM and then added to
the element stiffness matrix. So we can obtain raft-soil stiffness matrix.
The values of deflections are then obtained by solving the equation by
Gauss Elimination Method.
The deflections and contact pressure obtained are shown below,
Table No. 4.6. Deflection and Contact Pressure at various nodes on

the grid considering SSI by FEM(Winkler’s model).
Node Number Deflection Contact Pressure

mm KN/m2
13 10.9 27.94
14 5 12.82
18 4.03 10.33
12 5 12.82
8 3.8 9.74
19 1.1 2.82
17 1.1 2.82
7 1.1 2.82
9 1.1 2.82
60
Nodal Points
'6-11-16 7-12-17 8-13-18 9-14-19 10-15-20'
0 0 0
1.1 1.1
2
4 4.03
Deflection
6-7-8-9-10
5 5
6 11-12-13-14-15
8 16-17-18-19-20
10
10.9
12

16-17-18-19-20.
Nodal Points
'6-11-16 7-12-17 8-13-18 9-14-19 10-15-20'
0 0 0
2.82 2.82
5
Deflection
10 10.33 6-7-8-9-10
12.82 12.82
15 11-12-13-14-15
20 16-17-18-19-20
25
27.94
30
Graph No. 4.16. Contact Pressure Distribution along 6-7-8-9-10,

11-12-13-14-15 and 16-17-18-19-20.
61
Nodal Points
'2-3-4 7-8-9 12-13-14 17-18-19 22-23-24'
0 0 0
1.1 1.1
2
4 3.8 4.03
Deflection
2-7-12-17-22
5
6 3-8-13-18-23
8 4-9-14-19-24
10
10.9
12

and 4-9-14-19-24.
Nodal Points
'2-3-4 7-8-9 12-13-14 17-18-19 22-23-24'
0 0 0
2.82 2.82
5
10 9.74
Deflection
10.33 2-7-12-17-22
12.82
15 3-8-13-18-23
20 4-9-14-19-24
25
27.94
30
Graph No. 4.18. Contact Pressure Distribution along 2-7-12-17-22,

3-8-13-18-23 and 4-9-14-19-24.
62
4.4. Analysis of Raft foundation considering Soil-Structure Interaction on
Winkler’s Soil Model using STAAD Pro-2004 software:
STAAD Pro-2004 software is analysis and design software for
structures. The problem considered in the present work is two dimensional
plane stress problem. STAAD Pro-2004 is used to consider three-
dimensional problem of the same. Here superstructure, raft and soil are
considered as three components of one elastic system.
The beams and columns are considered as single line elements
and each beam and column is considered as individual element. Raft is
considered as three-dimensional plate, which follows Kirchoff’s plate
theory, which is thin in one direction, and the deflections of raft are small
compared to the plate thickness. The deflections are obtained on the
middle plane of the plate. The soil is modeled as Winkler’s soil model. It is
assumed that beneath each node of the plate a spring is present.
As discussed above the model is generated and the value of the
spring stiffness is entered in the foundation menu bar.
The properties incorporated are,
L = 10m.
B = 8m.
λx = 2 m.
λy = 2.5 m.
νconcrete = 0.15
kplate = 5128.205 kN/m3
63
The results obtained are shown in the table below,
Table No. 4.7. Deflection at various nodes on the raft grid

considering soil structure interaction using STAAD Pro-2004.
mm
13 9.064
14 3.01
18 2.75
12 3.01
8 2.75
19 1.07
17 1.07
7 1.07
9 1.07
Nodal Points
'6-11-16 7-12-17 8-13-18 9-14-19 10-15-20'
0 0 0
1.07 1.07
2
3.01 2.75 3.01
Deflection
6-7-8-9-10
4
11-12-13-14-15
6
16-17-18-19-20
8
9.064
10

and 16-17-18-19-20.
64
Nodal Points
'2-3-4 7-8-9 12-13-14 17-18-19 22-23-24'
0 0 0
1.07 1.07
2
2.75 3.01 2.75
Deflection
4 2-7-12-17-22
3-8-13-18-23
6 4-9-14-19-24
8
9.064
10
Graph No. 4.20. Deflection profile along 2-7-12-17-22,

3-8-13-18-23 and 4-9-14-19-24.
65
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter discusses the comparison of values of deflections

obtained by various methods used for analysis. Also the comparison of
values of deflection by considering soil structure interaction and without
soil structure interaction is done. Comparing contact pressure and
deflection values for different L/B ratios parametric study of raft foundation
is carried out. Parametric study enlightens the effect of L/B ratio on the
deflection values when soil structure interaction is considered and soil is
modeled as Winkler’s soil model. Also when Conventional Method is used
the effect of L/B ratio is important as Cd i.e. shape and rigidity factor,
affects the value of deflection.
5.1. COMPARISON OF DEFLECTION VALUES BY FINITE DIFFERENCE

METHOD AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD WITHOUT CONSIDERING
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION:
Table No. 5.1. Comparison of Deflection values by FDM and FEM without
considering Soil Structure Interaction.
Method of Analysis FDM FEM
Nodes (FDM) Nodes (FEM) Deflection Deflection
mm mm
0 13 21.3 24
1 14 9 12
2 18 7.4 8
3 12 9 12
4 8 7.4 8
6 19 1.8 5
8 17 1.8 4
10 7 1.8 4
12 9 1.8 4
66
From the values given in the Table 5.1, it has been observed that
the values of deflections obtained by Finite Element Method are more than
those obtained by Finite Difference Method. At central node the value of
deflection obtained by FDM is 21.3mm and that obtained by FEM is
24mm. At central node the value of deflection obtained by FDM is 11.25%
more than that obtained by FDM. This change in value of deflection is due
to the consideration of more degrees of freedom in FEM. In FDM only one
DOF is considered i.e. deflection (w), but in FEM at each node four DOF
are considered (w,θx, θy, θxy).
5.2. COMPARISON OF DEFLECTION VALUES BY FINITE DIFFERENCE

METHOD AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD WITH CONSIDERING SOIL-
STRUCTURE INTERACTION:
Table No. 5.2. Comparison of deflection values by FDM and FEM

considering Soil Structure Interaction.
Method of FDM FEM

Analysis Deflection Deflection
mm mm
Nodes (FDM) Nodes (FEM) Winkler’s Linear Elastic Winkler’s
Model Model Model
0 13 8.1 8.9 10.9
1 14 3.4 4.3 5
2 18 2.8 3.7 4.03
3 12 3.4 4.3 5
4 8 2.8 3.7 3.8
6 19 -1 -1 1.1
8 17 -1 -1 1.1
10 7 -1 -1 1.1
12 9 -1 -1 1.1
67
From the values given in the Table 5.2, it has been observed that
the values of deflections obtained by Finite Element Method are more than
those obtained by Finite Difference Method. Also when soil model
changes the value of deflection changes. This is due to the change in
formulation of calculating the value of ‘k’ for Winkler’s model and for Linear
Elastic Model. As during the calculation of ‘k’ value for Winkler’s soil model
the effective area of the grid comes into consideration and the value of
spring stiffness at each node is different, but while calculating ‘k’ value for
Linear Elastic Model it remains same throughout.
At central node (Node no. 0) the value of deflection obtained by
Linear Elastic Model is 8.9mm and the value of deflection at central node
(Node no. 0) obtained on Winkler’s soil model is 8.1mm. At central node
(Node no. 0) the value of deflection obtained by Linear Elastic Model is
8.98% more than that obtained on Winkler’s soil model.
At central node (Node no. 0) the value of deflection obtained by FEM on
Winkler’s soil model is 10.90mm.
Now if Winkler’s soil model is considered and analysis is done by
FDM and FEM it is observed that the difference in deflection at central
node is 25.68%.
5.3. COMPARITIVE STUDY OF DEFLECTION (mm) VALUES FOR RAFT

FOUNDATION WITH AND WITHOUT SSI:
Graph 5.1, shows the values of deflections obtained by FDM

without SSI and with SSI along short span. The central node is node
number 0. When SSI is not considered the deflection at the center is
21.3mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil model is 8.1mm. If soil is
modeled as LEM the deflection at center is 8.9mm. Similarly for adjacent
nodes (Node no. 3and 1), when SSI is not considered the deflection is
68
9mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil model the deflection is 3.4mm.
If soil is modeled as LEM the deflection is 4.3mm.
At central node the deflection is reduced by approximately 60%
when soil is modeled as Winkler’s soil model. When soil is modeled as
LEM the deflections are reduced by approximately 55%.
Nodal Points
9
0 3 0 1 5
0
0 3.4 3.4
0 0
5 8.1
4.3 4.3
Deflections
10
9 8.9 9
Without SSI
15
Winklers Model
20 LEM
25 21.3
Graph No. 5.1. Comparison of deflections with and without SSI by FDM
(Along short span).
Graph 5.2, shows the values of deflections obtained by FDM

without SSI and with SSI along long span. When SSI is not considered the
deflection at the center is 21.3mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil
model is 8.1mm. If soil is modeled as LEM the deflection at center is
8.9mm. Similarly for adjacent nodes (Node no. 3and 1), when SSI is not
considered the deflection is 7.4mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil
model the deflection is 2.8mm. If soil is modeled as LEM the deflection is
3.7mm.
69
At adjacent nodes the deflections are reduced by approximately
60% when soil is modeled as Winkler’s soil model. When soil is modeled
as LEM the deflections are reduced by approximately 50%.
Nodal Points
11 4 0 2 7
0 0 0
0 2.8 2.8 0
5
3.7 3.7
8.1
Deflections
7.4 7.4 Without SSI

10
8.9 Winklers Model
LEM
15
20
21.3
25
Graph No. 5.2. Comparison of deflections with and without SSI by FDM
(Along long span).
Graph 5.3, shows the values of deflections obtained by FEM

without SSI and with SSI along short span. The central node is node
24.0mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil model is 10.90mm.
Similarly for adjacent nodes (Node no. 12 and 14), when SSI is not
considered the deflection is 12mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil
model the deflection is 5mm.
At central node the deflection is reduced by approximately 55%
when soil is modeled as Winkler’s soil model.
70
Nodal Points
11 12 13 14 15
0 0 0
5 5 5
Without SSI
Deflections
10 10.9
12 12 With SSI (Winklers model)
15
20
25 24
30
Graph No. 5.3. Comparison of deflections with and without SSI by FEM
(Along short span).
Graph 5.4, shows the values of deflections obtained by FEM

without SSI and with SSI along long span. The central node is node
24.0mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil model is 10.90mm.
Similarly for adjacent nodes (Node no. 18 and 8), when SSI is not
considered the deflection is 8mm and considering SSI on Winkler’s soil
model the deflection is 4.03mm.
At adjacent nodes the deflections are reduced by approximately
50% when soil is modeled as Winkler’s soil model.
71
Nodal Points
23 18 13 8 3
0 0 0
5 4.03 3.8
8 8
Deflections
10 10.9
Without SSI
15
With SSI (Winklers Model)
20
25 24
30
Graph No. 5.4. Comparison of deflections with and without SSI by FEM
(Along long span).
Graph 5.5, shows the comparison between the different methods of

analysis used for raft foundation when soil structure interaction is not
considered. The deflection at the center when conventional method of
analysis is used is 17.52mm. The deflection obtained at the center by
FDM is 21.3mm and that obtained by FEM is 24mm.
The deflection at the center obtained by Conventional method
(Rigid raft) is approximately 27% less than that obtained by Finite Element
method (Flexible raft). The deflection at the center obtained by
Conventional method (Rigid raft) is approximately 17.74% less than that
obtained by Finite Difference method (Flexible raft). The deflection at the
center obtained by Finite Difference method is approximately 11.25% less
than that obtained by Finite Element method.
72
Conventional
FDM
Nodal Points FEM
9 3 0 1 5
0 0 0
5
Deflections
10 9 9
12.5 12 12 12.5
15 15 15
17.52
20 21.3
25 24
30
Graph No. 5.5. Comparison of deflections without SSI by Conventional

Method, FDM and FEM.
(Along short span).
Graph 5.6, shows the comparison between various methods of

analysis used for raft foundation when soil structure interaction is
considered. Also, the results obtained by using STAAD Pro- 2004
software are shown in the graph 5.6. At central node the deflection
obtained by FDM on Winkler’s soil model is 8.10mm and that obtained on
LEM is 8.90mm. At central node the deflection obtained by FEM on
Winkler’s soil model is 10.90mm and that obtained by using STAAD Pro
software is 9.064mm.
At the adjacent nodes the deflections obtained by FDM on
Winkler’s soil model is 3.40mm and that obtained on LEM is 4.30mm. At
the adjacent nodes the deflections obtained by FEM on Winkler’s soil
model is 5mm and that obtained by using STAAD Pro software is 3.01mm.
73
Nodal Points
9
0 3 0 1 5
0
00 0 0 0
2 0 3.4 3.4 0
3.01 3.01 FDM (Winkler's model)
Deflection
4 4.3 4.3
FDM (LEM)
6 8.1
5 5 FEM (Winkler's model)
8
8.9 9.064 FEM (STAAD Pro)
10
12 10.9
Graph No. 5.6. Comparison of deflections with SSI by FDM (Winkler’s

model), FDM (LEM) and FEM (Winkler’s model).
(Along short span).
74
Table No. 5.3. Comparative study of various methods of analysis
used without considering SSI and with SSI.
Method of Analysis. Conventional Finite Difference Method Finite Element Software
Method Method STAAD Pro
Nodes Nodes Without Winkler’s LEM Without Winkler’s Winkler’s
(FDM) (FEM) SSI Model SSI Model Model
0(Center) 13(Center) 17.52 21.3 8.1 8.9 24 10.9 9.064
1 14 - 9 3.4 4.3 12 5 3.01
2 18 - 7.4 2.8 3.7 8 4.03 2.75
3 12 - 9 3.4 4.3 12 5 3.01
4 8 - 7.4 2.8 3.7 8 3.8 2.75
5 15 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 19 - 1.8 -1 -1 5 1.1 1.07
7 23 7.52 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 17 - 1.8 -1 -1 4 1.1 1.07
9 11 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 7 - 1.8 -1 -1 4 1.1 1.07
11 3 15.41 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 9 - 1.8 -1 -1 4 1.1 1.07
13 20 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 24 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 22 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 16 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 6 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 4 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 10 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 25 5.66 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 21 5.66 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 1 11.60 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 5 11.60 0 0 0 0 0 0
75
5.4. PARAMATRIC STUDY:
The deflections that are obtained by any method of analysis as
discussed in previous sections depend largely on L/B ratio. When
deflections for Conventional method are to be obtained, it depends on Cd
i.e. shape and rigidity factor which in turn depends on L/B ratio and shape
of the raft.
When method of analysis used is Finite Difference Method
considering soil structure interaction, deflection value depends on
modulus of sub grade reaction (k). The k value changes with the shape of
the contributing area of the raft.
For rectangular footings,
k = kplate (2/3) [1+(B/2L)]
Finite Element Method by considering soil structure interaction uses
the same concept for analysis of raft foundation. So parametric study is
done to observe the deflections for various L/B ratios.
5.4.1. Conventional Method of raft analysis:

Table No.5.4. For various L/B ratios the deflections and contact
pressure.
L/B 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0
Ratio
Nodes Defl CP Defl CP Defl CP Defl CP Defl CP
2 2 2 2
mm KN/m mm KN/m mm KN/m mm KN/m mm KN/m2
A 23.05 102.37 11.60 95.16 9.41 92.63 8.02 92.13 8.01 92.65
B 23.05 102.37 15.41 95.16 12.50 92.63 10.66 92.13 10.32 92.65
C 23.05 102.37 11.60 95.16 9.41 92.63 8.02 92.13 8.01 92.65
D 16.48 73.20 12.50 70.81 10.47 71.18 9.16 72.66 9.50 74.64
E 16.48 73.20 17.52 70.81 14.68 71.18 12.84 72.66 12.90 74.64
F 16.48 73.20 12.50 70.81 10.47 71.18 9.16 72.66 9.50 74.64
G 9.91 44.02 5.66 46.47 5.05 49.73 4.63 53.19 4.89 56.63
H 9.91 44.02 7.52 46.47 6.71 49.73 6.15 53.19 6.31 56.63
I 9.91 44.02 5.66 46.47 5.05 49.73 4.63 53.19 4.89 56.63
77
Table 5.4, shows the values of deflections and contact pressure
obtained by Conventional Method for L/B ratio varying from 1 to 2. It is
observed that the values of deflection decrease with increase in L/B ratio.
This trend continues upto L/B ratio 1.75 and for L/B ratio this trend
changes. Similar trend is followed by contact pressure.
5.4.2. Finite Difference Method of raft analysis (Winkler’s Model):

Table No.5.5. Deflection values by Finite difference method on Winkler’s
soil model for various L/B ratios.
L/B 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0
Ratio
2 2 2 2
0 9.3 25.54 8.1 20.76 6.9 16.85 5.6 13.18 4.5 10.30
1 2.8 7.692 3.4 8.717 3.5 8.54 3.5 8.24 3.4 7.78
2 2.8 7.692 2.8 7.179 2.7 6.59 2.6 6.12 2.4 5.50
3 2.8 7.692 3.4 8.717 3.5 8.54 3.5 8.24 3.4 7.78
4 2.8 7.692 2.8 7.179 2.7 6.59 2.6 6.12 2.4 5.50
6 -1 - -1 - -1 - 0 - 0 -
8 -1 - -1 - -1 - 0 - 0 -
10 -1 - -1 - -1 - 0 - 0 -
12 -1 - -1 - -1 - 0 - 0 -

obtained by Finite Difference Method on Winkler’s model for L/B ratio
varying from 1 to 2. It is observed that the values of deflection at central
nodes (Node no. 0) decreases with increase in L/B ratio. Similar trend is
followed by contact pressure. But for adjacent nodes the deflections tend
to increase initially for L/B ratio 1 but approximately remain same for
further increase in L/B ratio.
78
5.4.3. Finite Difference Method of raft analysis (Linear Elastic Model):
Table No.5.6. Deflection values by Finite difference method on Linear

Elastic soil model for various L/B ratios.
L/B Ratio 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0
Nodes Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection
mm mm mm mm mm
0 10.9 8.9 7.3 5.8 4.6
1 3.4 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.1
2 3.4 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.9
3 3.4 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.1
4 3.4 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.9
6 -1 -1 -1 0 0
8 -1 -1 -1 0 0
10 -1 -1 -1 0 0
12 -1 -1 -1 0 0
Table 5.5, shows the values of deflections obtained by Finite

Difference Method on LEM model for L/B ratio varying from 1 to 2. It is
observed that the values of deflection decrease with increase in L/B ratio.
But for adjacent nodes the deflections tend to increase initially for L/B ratio
1 but approximately remain same for further increase in L/B ratio.
79
5.4.4. Finite Element Method of raft analysis (Winkler’s Model):
Table No.5.7. Deflection values by Finite element method on Winkler’s soil
model for various L/B ratios.
L/B Ratio 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0
2 2 2 2
13(center) 11.95 32.82 10.9 27.94 9.76 23.83 8.4 19.78 6.7 15.33
14 3.9 10.71 5 12.82 5.4 13.18 4.5 10.59 3.9 8.92
18 4 10.98 4.03 10.33 3.94 9.621 3.15 7.417 2.5 5.72
12 3.9 10.71 5 12.82 5.1 12.45 4.5 10.59 3.9 8.92
8 4 10.98 3.8 10.33 3.9 9.52 2.9 6.82 2.7 5.72
19 1.9 5.219 1.1 2.82 1 2.442 1.58 3.72 1.35 3.09
17 1.9 5.219 1.1 2.82 1.2 2.93 1.6 3.76 1.4 3.20
7 1.9 5.219 1.1 2.82 1 2.442 1.58 3.72 1.35 3.09
9 1.9 5.219 1.1 2.82 1.2 2.93 1.6 3.76 1.4 3.20

obtained by Finite Element Method on Winkler’s model for L/B ratio
varying from 1 to 2. It is observed that the values of deflection at central
nodes (Node no. 13) decreases with increase in L/B ratio. Similar trend is
observed for contact pressure distribution. But for adjacent nodes (Node
no. 12,14 etc) the deflections tend to increase initially for L/B ratio 1 but
approximately remain same for further increase in L/B ratio.
80
From the graph 5.7, it is observed that the deflection obtained at
the center decreases as the L/B ratio increases. This comparison is done
by keeping the value of L same throughout and by changing the value of
B.
EFFECT OF L/B RATIO
25
23.05
20
Deflection at center
17.52 Conventional Method

15 14.68 FDM (Winklers)
12.84 12.9
11.95 FDM (LEM)
10.9 10.9
10 9.76
8.9 8.4 FEM (Winklers)
9.3 7.3 6.7
5 8.1 5.8
6.9 4.6
5.6
4.5
0
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
L/B Ratio
Graph No. 5.7. Relation of L/B ratio and deflection obtained at the center
by various methods of analysis.
From the graph 5.8, it is observed that the contact pressure

obtained at the center decreases as the L/B ratio increases. This
comparison is done by keeping the value of L same throughout and by
changing the value of B.
81
EFFECT OF L/B RATIO
120
Contact Pressure at center
100 102.37
95.16 92.63 92.13 92.65
80
Conventional Method
60 FDM (Winklers)
32.82 FEM (Winklers)
40 27.94 23.83 19.78
15.33
20
25.54
20.76 16.85
0 13.18 10.3
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
L/B Ratio
Graph No. 5.8. Relation of L/B ratio and contact pressure obtained at the
center by various methods of analysis.
82
CONCLUSIONS
1) Analysis of raft foundation by Conventional Method, considering

raft as rigid body, is found to give conservative values than those
obtained by FDM and FEM. The values obtained during analysis
may result over designing of the raft.
2) Using Finite Difference Method, by considering SSI on Winkler’s

model, the deflection at the center of the raft has been observed to
reduce by 60% as compared with that obtained without SSI.
Similarly reduction in deflection with Linear Elastic Model is
of the order of 53% as that of without SSI.
3) Using Finite Element Method, by considering SSI on Winkler’s

model, then the deflection at the center of the raft has been
observed to reduce by approximately 55% as compared with that
obtained without SSI.
4) Contact pressure obtained by Conventional Method has been

observed to be about 70% and 60% more than that obtained by
Finite Difference Method and Finite Element Method respectively.
5) Difference in deflections at the center of the raft by Finite Element

Method using Winkler’s model with two dimensional plate element
and three-dimensional plate element (STAAD Pro-2004) is
approximately same. Similarly for adjacent nodes the increase is
about 35%.
6) The deflection obtained at the center decreases as the L/B ratio

increases. This comparison is done by keeping the value of L same
throughout and by changing the value of B. Similarly, the contact
83
pressure obtained at the center decreases as the L/B ratio
increases.
Thus it can be concluded that raft should be designed by

considering Soil Structure Interaction using either Finite Difference
Method or Finite Element Method. However, Finite Element Method
(two or three dimensional plate element) is more preferable as it
takes into account four degrees of freedom and therefore results
are more realistic.
84
APPENDIX – A
In conventional method the deflections are calculated by the formula,

2
C d qnet B(1 − ν s )
∆i =
Es
Where, qnet = Net intensity of pressure
Cd = Shape and rigidity factor.
νs = Poisson’s ratio of soil.
Es = Elastic modulus of soil.
The value of shape and rigidity factor Cd depends on shape of loaded area,
position of point for which settlement is to be estimated and stratification in
foundation soils. When the subsoil is uniform to infinite depth, values of Cd are to
be obtained from the following table given below, by Nayak, N.V, 2001.
Table No. A-1. Values of Cd for calculating settlement of points on loaded
area at surface.
Shape Values of Cd for point at
Center Corner Middle of Middle of long Average
short side side
Circle 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.85
Circle (Rigid) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Square 1.12 0.56 0.76 0.76 0.95
Square 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
(Rigid)
Rectangle
Length/width
1.5 1.36 0.67 0.89 0.97 1.15
2 1.52 0.76 0.98 1.12 1.30
3 1.78 0.88 1.11 1.35 1.52
5 2.10 1.05 1.27 1.68 1.83
10 2.53 1.26 1.49 2.12 2.25
100 4.00 2.00 2.20 3.60 3.70
1000 5.47 2.75 2.94 5.03 5.15
10000 6.90 3.50 3.70 6.50 6.60
85
APPENDIX – B
B-1. DERIVATION FOR FLEXURAL RIGIDITY OF PLATE:

Considering a long rectangular plate subjected to transverse load.
The deflected portion of the plate is assumed to be cylindrical with axis of
cylinder parallel to the plate.
l
X
Unit
width
w
Y
Fig No. B-1. Cylindrical Bending of Plates.

Ref – Timoshinko,S.P, and Krieger,S.W.(1959)
Elemental strip of unit thickness is considered. Plate is considered

of uniform thickness ‘h’. XY plane is the middle of plate before bending.
Let positive direction of Z – axis is downward. Now for elemental strip
width of plate is ‘l’. Therefore strip is considered as bar have length ‘l’ and
depth ‘h’. It is assumed that cross section of bar remains plane during
bending. Therefore it undergoes only rotation with respect to neutral axis.
M M
h/2
Fig No. B-2. Section of Plate Bending.

(Timoshinko,S.P, and Krieger,S.W. 1959)
86
Curvature of deflection = d2w/ dx2
w = Deflection in Z – direction.
Deflection is assumed to be small in as compared to length of the bar.
ε x at a distance z from middle surface = - z d2w/ dx2
ε x = σx/ E - ν σy/ E ------------------------(1)
Lateral strain in Y direction must be zero in order to maintain continuity
during plate bending.
ε y = σy/ E - ν σx/ E = 0
σy = ν σx -----------------------(2)
ε x = (1 - ν2)σx/ E
σx = E ε x / (1 - ν2) = - [ Ez / (1 - ν2)] d2w/ dx2 --------( 3)
Bending Moment,
M = -h/2h/2∫ z σx dz = --h/2h/2∫ [ Ez2 / (1 - ν2)] d2w/ dx2. dz
= --h/2h/2∫ [ Ez2 / (1 - ν2)] d2w/ dx2. dz
= - [Eh3/12(1 - ν2)] d2w/ dx2 ------------------(4)
D = Flexural rigidity of plate = Eh3/12(1 - ν2) -----------------(5)

The basic differential equation is,
M = - D d2w/ dx2 --------------------(6)
87
B-2. DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION OF THE DEFLECTION SURFACE:
Assumptions made are,
1) Load acting on plate is normal to its surface.
2) Deflections are small in comparison with thickness of plate.
3) At boundary edges of plate are free to move in plane of plate.
4) From the assumptions we can neglect any strain in middle plane of
plate during bending.
Take co-ordinate axis X-Y in middle plane of plate and Z- axis
perpendicular to that plane. In addition to moments Mx and My, twisting
moments Mxy are considered in pure bending. There are vertical shearing
forces acting on sides of element.
dx
d
y
Mx +(∂Mx/∂x)dx
Mxy +(∂Mxy/∂y)dy
Mxy +(∂Mxy/∂x)dx
My Qx +(∂Qx/∂x)dx
Qy
Fig No. B-3. Moments and Shear forces acting on Plates.

(Timoshinko,S.P, and Krieger,S.W,1959)
Magnitude of these shearing forces,

Qx = -h/2 h/2∫ ζxz dz.
Qy = -h/2 h/2∫ ζyz dz.
88
Moments and shearing forces are functions of X and Y. While
discussing conditions of equilibrium we take into consideration the small
change by quantities dx and dy.
Distributed load over the plate is considered as qdxdy.
∂Qx dx - ∂Mxy dy + qdxdy = 0

∂x ∂y
∂Qx - ∂Mxy + q = 0 --------------------------------(7)

∂x ∂y
Taking moments @ X axis,

∂Mxy dxdy - ∂My dxdy + Qydxdy = 0
∂x ∂y
∂Mxy - ∂My + Qy = 0 ------------------------------(8)

∂x ∂y
Similarly,
∂Mxy + ∂Mx - Qx = 0 ------------------------------(9)
∂y ∂x
Obtaining values of Qx and Qy from equation (g) and (h) and

substituting in equation (i)
∂2Mx + ∂2Myx + ∂2My - ∂2Mxy = - q
∂x2 ∂x∂y ∂y2 ∂x∂y
Myx = - Mxy
89
∂2Mx - 2 ∂2Myx + ∂2My = - q --------------------------(10)
2 2
∂x ∂x∂y ∂y
Mx = -D [∂2w/∂x2+ ν ∂2w/∂y2]
My = -D [∂2w/∂y2+ ν ∂2w/∂x2]
Myx = - Mxy = D (1 - ν2) ∂2w/∂xy
∂4w - 2 ∂4w + ∂4w = - q ------------------------(11)
∂x4 ∂x2∂y2 ∂y4 D
This is basic plate bending equation.
90
APPENDIX – C
But in Finite element methods the location and values of sampling points
as well as the weights are unknown, so a numerical integration scheme, which
optimizes both the sampling points and the weights, is to be used. This can be
done using Gauss Quadrature rule.
The basic assumption for Gauss Quadrature rule is,
a b
0∫ 0∫ F (ζ, η) dζdη = Σ Σ αi,j F(ζi,ηj)
where, αi, j = Weights.
While performing numerical integration the values of sampling points and weights
are given in the table given below,
Table No. C-2. Values of Sampling points and weights for different number
of sampling points.
Bathe, K.J, 1997.
Number of sampling points Sampling points Weights
1 0.000000000000000 2.000000000000000
2 +0.577350269189626 1.000000000000000
3 +0.774596669241483 0.555555555555556
0.000000000000000 0.888888888888889
4 +0.861136311594053 0.347854845137454
+0.39981043584856 0.652145154862546
5 +0.906179845938664 0.236926885056189
0.538469310105683 0.478628670499366
0.000000000000000 0.568888888888889
6 +0.932469514203152 0.171324492379170
+0.661209386466265 0.360761573048139
+0.238619186083197 0.467913934572691
91
REFERENCES
1) King, G.W.J (1977), “An introduction to superstructure/raft/soil

interaction”, International Symposium on Soil Structure Interaction, pp-453-466.
2) Hain,S.J, Lee, I.K (1974), “Rational analysis of raft foundation", American

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol- 100
No.GT7, pp-843 - 860.
3) Chandrasekaran,V.S (2001), “Numerical and Centrifuge Modeling in Soil

Structure Interaction”, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 31 No 1, pp – 1-60
4) Lee, I.K (1977), “Interaction analysis of raft and raft pile system”, International
Symposium on Soil Structure Interaction, pp-513-520.
5) Milovic, S.D(1998),”A Comparison between observed and calculated large

settlements of raft foundation”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol- 35, pp-251 -
263.
6) Horvath,J.S. (1983), “New Sub grade model applied to mat foundation",

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol-
109 No.GT7, pp-1567 - 1587.
7) Ungureanu,N, Ciongradi,I, and Strat,l,(1977) “Framed structure foundation

beams soil interaction”, International Symposium on Soil Structure Interaction,
pp-101-108.
8) Devaikar, D.M (1977), “Contact pressure distribution under rigid footings”,

International Symposium on Soil Structure Interaction, pp-231-236.
9) Jagdish,R and Sharda Bai,H (1977), “Design of combined footings on elastic

foundation”, International Symposium on Soil Structure Interaction, pp-271-278.
10) Chen, W and Snitbhan,N (1977), “Analytical studies for solution of soil
structure interaction problems”, International Symposium on Soil Structure
Interaction, pp-557-575.
93
BOOKS REFERRED
1) Kurian,N (1981), “Modern Foundation – Introduction to Advanced

Techniques”, Tata Mcgraw Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi.
2) Kurian,N (1992), “Design of Foundation Ststems”, Narosa Publishing House,

New Delhi.
3) Timoshenko,S.P and Krieger,S (1959), “Theory of Plates and Shells”, Tata

Mcgraw Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi.
4) Desai,C.S and Abel,J.F (2000), “ Introduction to the Finite Element Method”,

CBS Publishers and Distributers, New Delhi.
5) Bowels, J.E, (1988), “ Foundation Analysis and Design”, Tata Mcgraw Hill
Publishing Company, New Delhi.
6) Bathe, K-J, (1997), “ Finite Element Procedures”, Princeton Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd, New Delhi.
7) Zienkiewicz, O.C,(1997), “ The Finite Element Method”, Tata Mcgraw Hill

Publishing Company, New Delhi.
94

Mtech Dissertation - Analysis of Raft Foundation Using Soil-Structure Interaction

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mtech Dissertation - Analysis of Raft Foundation Using Soil-Structure Interaction

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ANALYSIS OF RAFT FOUNDATION USING SOIL-STRUCTURE

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

PUNE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

PUNE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

I cherish this opportunity of being able to express my deep

I would like to thank the Head Of Civil Engineering Department

Prof. Dr. U. J. Kahalekar for constructive encouragement.

Last but not the least, I am extremely grateful to

co-operation during the literature survey.

Balraj Suresh Shevade, Place- Pune

M.Tech ( Civil – Geotechnical Engg.) Date- 06.06.2005

Roll. No. - M0310G08

Sr.No. Description PageNo.

2. Soil Structure Interaction.

5.4. Parametric study.

k - Modulus of sub grade reaction.

1.2. TYPES OF RAFT:

1.3. ANALYSIS OF RAFT:

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

2.2. SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION:

2.3. CONTACT PRESSURE:

2.3.1. Contact pressure by theory of elasticity:

(1) Contact pressure under perfectly flexible footings:

(2) Contact pressure under perfectly rigid footing:

2.3.2. Contact pressure from the theory of sub grade reaction:

(2) Contact pressure under perfectly flexible footing:

2.4. SOIL MODELS USED IN SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION:

2) Elastic half space model:

2.4.2. Centrifuge modeling:

2.4.3. Estimation of Modulus of Sub grade (k) value:

Fig.No.2.3. Plate load test results.

If the soil is linear as assumed by Winkler the slope of load

In the present work, methods of analysis of raft foundation are

If the resultant is not eccentric then the pressure distribution will be

The maximum contact pressure distribution obtained must be less

3.3. FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD:

3.3.2. Finite Difference Plate Bending Equation:

[∂4w/∂x4]0 = 1/λx4{[∂2w/∂x2]1 - 2[∂2w/∂x2]0 - [∂2w/∂x2]3}

Similar equation for ∂4w/∂y4 can be obtained as,

[∂4w/∂y4] 0= 1/λy4[ 6 w0 – 4(w2 + w4 ) + w7 + w11 ] -----------(3.6)

and for ∂4w/∂x2∂y2 at point 0,

[∂4w/∂x2∂y2] 0 = 1/ λx2λy2 [4 w0 – 2(w1 + w2 + w3 + w4 )

Combining equations (3.5), (3.6), (3.7) and writing it in form of

From equation (3.8) we get equation in terms of unknown values

3.4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS:

3.4.2. Sub-Structure Method:

By partial inversion on above equation,

Combining equations (3.12) and (3.14).

3.4.5. Variational Formulation:

The principle of minimum potential energy is,

π = ∫∫∫v dU(u,v,w) - ∫∫∫ v (Xu + Yv + Zw) dV

- ∫∫∫ v (Xu + Yv + Zw) dV - ∫∫ s1 ( Tx u + Ty v + Tz w) ds1 = work done by

π = ∫∫∫v [ ½ { ε }T [C] { ε } - 2{ u }T { X } ] dV - ∫∫ s1 { u }T{ Tx } ds1

Further substituting these values in equation (3.20), we have,

π = ∫∫∫v [ ½ { q }T [B] T [C] { q } [B] - 2{ q }T [N] T [X] ]dV

{ δq }T { ∫∫∫v [ [B] T[C] [B] {q} - [N] T [X] ]dV

[k] {q} = {Q} ---------------(3.25)

From the equation 3.25. general formula for element characteristics

3.4.6. Jacobian Operator: