i

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

PULCHOWK CAMPUS

Thesis No:


SEISMIC SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS FOR
SHALLOW FOUNDATION


by

DAMAN KUMAR BISTA

(067/MSG/805)






A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING




DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
LALITPUR, NEPAL


April, 2012



ii
COPYRIGHT


The author has agreed that the Library, Department of Civil Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, may make this thesis freely available
for inspection.
Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this
thesis for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor who supervised the
thesis work recorded herein or, in his absence, by the Head of the Department
or concerning M.Sc. program coordinator or the Dean of the Institute in which
thesis work was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the
author of this thesis and to the Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, for any use of the material of this thesis.
Copying or publication or other use of the thesis for financial gain without
approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus and the authors written permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material of this
thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to:













.............................
Head of the Department of Civil Engineering
Institute of Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus

Lalitpur, Nepal





iii

CERTIFICATE


This is to certified that the work contained in this thesis entitled SEISMIC SOIL
STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATION
in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Geotechnical
Engineering, as a record of bona-fide work, has been carried out by Mr. Daman
Kumar Bista (067/MSG/805) under my supervision and guidance in the Institute of
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Lalitpur, Nepal. The work embodied in this thesis
has not been published or submitted for the award of any degree elsewhere.





















...................................................................
Supervisor

Dr.Hariram Parajuli
Institute of Engineering Pulchowk Campus
Department of Civil Engineering

Tribuvan University

Lalitpur, Nepal








iv


CERTIFICATE



The thesis presented by Mr. Daman Kumar Bista enti tl ed SEISMIC SOIL
STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATION
has been accepted by as the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Geotechnical Engineering.


























.......................................................... .....................................................

Prof. Padma Khadka

Coordinator, M. Sc. Programme in External Examiner
Geotechnical Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering IOE, Pulchowk Campus
IOE, Pulchowk Campus Tribhuvan University
Tribhuvan University Lalitpur, Nepal
Lalitpur, Nepal





v



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT



I would like to express my profound gratitude to t he contribution of my supervisor
Dr. Hariram Parajuli. I am indebted to him for providing encouragement,
outstanding supervision, expert guidance, consistent supports and constructive
criticism throughout the thesis period.

I am pleased to acknowledge Prof. Padma Khadka, (Coordinator, Geo-tech Program,
Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus), for his continuous encouragement and
valuable suggestions.

I humbly acknowledge the support received from Prof. Dr. Ram Krishna Paudel
and Prof. Dr. Akal Bahadur Singh of their constant support and valuable
suggestions
I would like to thank all the personalities who were directly or indirectly involved in
help. The authors of the journals, reports, books, dissertations and internet web site
which, I referred for the information required are heartily acknowledgeable.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my brothers and parents for
their continuous support, and providing me learning environment and modeling the
thesis work and assisting me to prepare this wonderful thesis in this sweet form.
.
Daman Kumar Bista
(067/MSG/805)





vi
ABSTRACT

Nepal is the mountainous country and highly dangerous in the point of view of
earthquake. Nepal is locked between Tibetan plate and Indian plate, where Tibetan
plate shares the relative shear strain of about 2 centimeters per year as per estimated.
As well as the Indian plate shares the relative strain of about 3 cm per year .Because
of these changes in the plates Nepal lies under the highly active seismic zone. As
Kathmandu valley lies inside Nepal, it is considered as seismically most hazard prone
area. One of the most affecting components of earthquake is the soil and its nature.
The soil of different part of country has low strength response & high deformation
character. This effect of stress-strain character of foundation soil & ultimately may
have adverse impact on stability of structure.
Nepal continues to face a high level of earthquake. Therefore, the proposed topic is
helpful for understanding effect of seismic on soil-structure interface & conditional
behavior soil parameters. The model is generated in 3-D with structural loading for
mat foundation on software program SAP 2000 version14 .Time History Analysis is
done for maximum permanent displacement and acceleration form Elcentro (1940)
and Kobe (1995) ground motion for easy unavailability of local accelerograms record
on vicinity area of country and study of effect sub-structural and soil parameters on
displacement for proposed model to its soil-structure interaction.
Although there have been many important developments in analytical tools and
laboratory testing techniques, there is still a wide gap between soil-foundation
modelling and reality. It seems that to improve our knowledge on simulation and
narrow the modeling -reality gap a significant number of soil-foundation systems with
varying characteristics and to measure loading effects on the foundation soil, on the
various components of the foundation, and at the soil-foundation interface. Thus, any
analytical and mathematical model derived from this type of information would
necessarily be closer to reality.
For more generalized conclusion, it is necessary to carry out such work for all types of
mat foundation structure for economy and safety Design.


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT............................................................................................................................. ii
CERTIFICATE ......................................................................................................................... iii
CERTIFICATE ......................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLE ...................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... xi
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The origin of Ideas and problem Statement ..................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1Shallow foundation .................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2Type of shallow foundation ....................................................................................... 4
2.1.2.1Spread foundation ............................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 .2Strip Foundation ................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2.3 Mat Foundation .................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2.4 Need of raft foundation ...................................................................................... 5
2.1.2.5Types of Mat Foundation: ................................................................................... 6
2.1.2.6 Bearing Capacity of Mat Foundation. ............................................................... 9
2.1.2.6.1 Raft on cohesion less soil: ........................................................................... 9
2.1.2.6.2 Rafts on Clay: ........................................................................................... 10
2.1.2.6.3 Bearing capacity of raft using Hansens , Meyerhoffs and Vesics theory:
................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.2.6.3For Saturated Clayey Soil: (with = 0 and vertically loading condition):
................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2.7 Principle of floating raft: .................................................................................. 14
2.1.2.8 Design Methods for Mat Foundation: ............................................................. 14
2.1.2.9Factors affecting the behavior of Mat ............................................................... 14
2.2 Seismic Soil- Structure Interaction ................................................................................ 14

viii
2.2.1Soil- Structure Interface Interaction ......................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Modeling Soil - Structure Interaction: .................................................................... 16
2.3Earthquake in Nepal .................................................................................................... 17
2.3.1Earthquake Loading or Seismic loading .................................................................. 20
2.3.2Earthquake Intensity ................................................................................................ 21
2.3.3 Soil-Soil Interaction ................................................................................................ 22
2.3.4 Soil-Structure Interaction Effect ............................................................................. 22
2.4 Instrumentation of Foundation ....................................................................................... 24
2.4 Effect of Superstructure on Foundation ......................................................................... 25
2.5 Dynamic analysis-Time History Analysis ..................................................................... 26
2.6 Finite Element Specific Soil Structure Interaction Modeling ...................................... 28
2.7 Site Sub-soil Categories ................................................................................................. 30
2.8 Load Combination and Increase in Permissible Stresses ............................................... 31
2.9 Modulus of sub grade reaction of soil (Ks): .................................................................. 32
2.10 Damping ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 35
3.1 General Approach of modeling .................................................................................... 35
3.2 Model used in the analysis: Detail of the Model........................................................ 35
3.2.1 Structural and Material property ............................................................................. 36
3.2.2 Static loading on model from super structure: ........................................................ 36
3.2.2.1 Gravity load ..................................................................................................... 36
3.3.2.2 Live loads ......................................................................................................... 37
3.3 Software ......................................................................................................................... 37
4.ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................... 45
5.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
REFERENCES: ....................................................................................................................... 56







ix

LIST OF TABLE

Table 2. 1 : Table for Bearing capacity factors (H= Hensons M= Meyerhoffs,
V=Vesics.....................................................................................................................12
Table 2.2 Hansen's bearing capacity factors.................................................................13
Table 3.1: Soil data from borehole log, Durbarmarga..................................................40
Table 3.2: Soil data from borehole log , Kalanki........................................................ 41
























x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Various configurations of mat foundation .......................................... 8
Figure 2.2: Intensity records of earthquake in 1833 .................................. 19
Figure 2.3: Interaction between loaded and unloaded surface ............................ 22
Figure 3.1: Plan (XY) for model .............................................................................. 37
Figure 3.2: Section (XZ) of model ........................................................................... 37
Figure 3.3: 3-D modeling.......................................................................................... 38

Figure 3.3: Plan (XY) for model ..............................................................................61
Figure 3.4: Section (XZ) of model ...........................................................................61
Figure 3.7: Method 1 used in modeling..................................................................

Figure 3.3: Plan (XY) for model ..............................................................................61
Figure 3.4: Section (XZ) of model ...........................................................................61
Figure 3.7: Method 1 used in modeling...................................................................

Figure 3.3: Plan (XY) for model ..............................................................................61
Figure 3.4: Section (XZ) of model ...........................................................................61
Figure 3.7: Method 1 used in modeling..................................................................

.
Figure 3.3: Plan (XY) for model ..............................................................................61
Figure 3.4: Section (XZ) of model ...........................................................................61
Figure 3.7: Method 1 used in modeling...............................................................



xi
















LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A = Area of mat
B = Smaller dimension of raft
Cu = Undrained cohesion
Cu = Undrained shear strength of clay at side of foundation
Cw = Settlement coefficient
dc, dq, d = Depth factor
Df = Depth of foundation.
Dr = Relative density of sand,
E
s
= Modulus of elasticity of soil.
t = Depth or thickness of mat.
I = Moment of inertia
ic, iq, i = Load inclination factor

xii
Is = soil influence matrix
K = Modulus of foundation
Ks = Stiffness of Soil
k
s
= Coefficient of subgrade reaction
N = N60 = Corrected SPT Value
n = Number of piles in the group
Nc, Nq, N = Bearing capacity factors
Qu = Ultimate load at the failure
Rd = Depth reduction factor
Rw = Water table correction facto
Rw1. Rw2 = Water table correction factor
S = Allowable settlement
S
c
, S
q
, S

= Shape Factor
= Poissons ratio of material
s = Poissons ratio of soil
= Average adhesion factor considered
= Effective unit weight of soil
e = Effective unit weight of soil below the mat




1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Nepal lies in a seismically vulnerable zone since it is surrounded by the Tibetan Plate
at northern part and Indian plane at southern. Moreover the country itself is under
developed and construction of structures like airports, roads, bridges, schools,
hospitals private and public buildings etc are under construction in many parts of the
country. Here in both the urban and rural areas most of these structures consist of
shallow type of sub structures. The popularity of such types of shallow foundations
may be due to the medium rise and low rise building structure in nature and economic
as well as imposed building bye laws in many VDCs and municipalities. But the
interaction between soil and structure in such type of structure in our case has to be
studied.
The soil- structure interaction analysis greatly coincides with the earthquake , seismic
hazard & seismic safety analysis . Seismic excitation effects the couple behavior of
foundation - structure & underlying soil. For proper reliable simulation of structural
effects with field condition , soil -structure interaction can always be a valuable tool
for more efficient & precise seismic hazard analysis & design. So the finite element
method & time history analysis most suitable analytical method to solve the complex
boundary problems with simulating of soil strata & overlying structure. Also the
model is simple, precise &can capture nonlinear behavior. Developed country with
large city built on alluvial deposit has long history of earth quake hazard records &
study on behavior of foundation under seismic loads. They have the guide lines &
codes to be followed for the analysis of dynamic behavior of soil & foundation.
To make the research work model more suitable & correct evaluation of dynamic
response with surrounding soil parameter & get a conclusion that can be used in
design & analysis of soil- foundation, study of soil-structure interaction inneed.





2

1.2 The origin of Ideas and problem Statement

Soil mechanics or foundation engineering consists of static and dynamic nature of
problems. For the case of static problem, there comes a sizable amount of deformation
and strain related works to do while for the case of dynamic, there arises a complexity
because the state of soil is in motion and inertial force is another significant parameter
as the time interval at which deformation and strain occurs becomes short. Even at the
low level of low strain, the inertial force significantly great with increasing rapidity in
motion. So in soil dynamics, behavior of soil subjected to very small strain are also to
be studied. The strength parameter & deformation characteristic of soil is dependent
on the magnitude shear strain. So many investigations have been made to evaluate
shear strain dependent on soil parameter at the different location of world but this type
of details study has not been started in our Kathmandu valley & also in country part.
Without details field investigations, we cannot include the correct dynamic soil
parameter for numerical analysis .To evaluate such parameter from laboratory test is
difficult because which may or may not represent the field condition expensive, &
involves complicated geometry.
Dynamic interaction effects is by associating with linear springs & dashpots to the
degree of freedom of foundation ,former accounting for change in stiffness &
consequently the change in natural frequency & later dissipation of building
vibrational energy via radiation damping .After 1960s the application of finite
element method to analyze dynamic soil- structure interaction problem has greatly
reduced the computational effort & thus increase the numerical capacity to include
real soil-structure situation .But the problem still now is representation of boundary
condition, spatial variation of soil parameter with response time of dynamic loading &
correct formulation of contact geometry between soil & structure.
For such problems numerous software numerical codes & algorithms can be used to
analyze. The selection is building mat foundation-soil constitutive model & boundary
conditions for dynamic analysis of soil-structure system. The high experience &
correct judgment has always its position up since it is very difficult to experimentally
verify the numerical result or they will be verified only after their application on real
situation or field.

3
1.3 Objectives

The objective of this research is to analyze the Mat foundation under Nonlinear soil
link model with structure under static and seismic loading conditions and to
analyze following:.
- Performing linear and non-linear dynamic analysis with mat foundation for
medium clay soil at seismic Zone V. i.e Kathmandu valley.
- Analyzing the displacement building with its foundation cases to permit
movement, in order to avoid pounding of foundation and its structure due to
earthquake by Linear and Non-linear Dynamic Analysis.
- Permanent deformation of soil at performance point under seismic loading.
- To check the interaction between soil-mat- structure.
- To develop the analysis and design concept by using the finite element
computer software.
- To enhance the research skill.

1.4 Scope of the Study

- The model is on SAP 2000 v. 14 FNA .
- The soil properties (modulus of elasticity, cohesion, friction, poisons ratio
etc.) are taken according to correlations between N value and other parameters from
the borehole log at two locations in Kathmandu valley.
- The analysis is done for seismic loading with vertical static loads
consideration as structural loading.
- Structural design of is done from references of IS-code and NBC.









4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
Foundation
Foundation is the lowest load-bearing part of a super structure, typically below
ground level. Foundation systems are often classified as shallow or deep foundations,
depending on the depth of the load-transfer member below the super-structure and the
type of transfer load mechanism. The required foundation system depends on the
strength and compressibility of the site soils, the proposed loading conditions, and the
project performance criteria .i.e. total settlement and differential settlement limitation.
Foundation designs are based on the assumed bearing capacity of the soil at the
building site. In construction sites where settlement is not a problem, shallow
foundations provide the most economical foundation systems. Shallow foundation
construction is typically utilized for most residential and light commercial raised floor
building sites and also for public building sites in our country context.
2.1.1Shallow foundation
Shallow foundations are constructed near to the finished ground surface. Generally
the foundation depth is less than the width of the footing and less than 3m. Shallow
foundations are spread footing, isolated footings, strip footings and mat foundations.
Shallows foundations are used when surface soils are sufficiently strong and stiff to
support the imposed loads. The advantage of shallow foundation are on parameters
such as cost, construction procedure, materials and labors quality etc.
2.1.2Type of shallow foundation
2.1.2.1Spread foundation
Spread foundations are used to support an individual point load such as that due to a
structural column. They may be circular, square or rectangular. They usually consist
of a block or slab of uniform thickness, but they may be stepped or hunched if they
are required to spread the load from a heavy column. Spread foundations are usually
shallow, but deep pad foundations can also be used.


5
2.1.2 .2Strip Foundation
Strip foundations are used to support a line of loads, either due to a load-bearing wall,
or if a line of columns need supporting where column positions are so close that
individual pad foundations would be inappropriate.
2.1.2.3 Mat Foundation
Introduction
A mat or raft foundation is a thick reinforced concrete slab which supports the entire
load (from bearing walls and column loads) of a structure or a large portion of the
structure. A mat is required when the loads are heavy and the soil is very weak or
highly compressible. A mat foundation comes to be more economical than the
individual footings when the total base area required for individual footings exceeds
about one half of the area covered by the structure. It is common to use mat
foundations for deep basements both to spread the column loads to more uniform
pressure distribution and provide the floor slab for the basement. Particularly
advantages for basements at a below the GWT is to provide a water barrier. Mat
foundation requires both positive as well as negative reinforcement steel.
2.1.2.4 Need of raft foundation
Raft foundation is generally suggested in the following situations:
(a) When the loads coming from superstructure are so heavy and the allowable
pressure of soil is small that individual footings would cover more than 50% floor
area.
(b) When soil contains compressible lenses, erratic soil condition and it is difficult to
define and assess the extent of each of the weak pockets or cavities and, thus, estimate
the overall and differential settlement.
(c) When structures and equipment to be supported are very sensitive to differential
settlement.
(d) Where structures naturally lend themselves for the use of raft foundation such as
chimneys, water towers, etc.
(e) Floating foundation cases wherein soil is having very poor bearing capacity and
the weight of the super-structure is proposed to be balanced by the weight of the soil
removed.
(f) Buildings where basements are to be provided or pits located below ground water
table.

6

(g) Buildings where individual foundation, if provided, will be subjected to large
widely varying bending moments which may result in differential rotation and
differential settlement of individual footings causing distress in the building.

In case of soil having low bearing pressure, use of raft foundation gives three-fold
advantage:
(a) Ultimate bearing capacity increases with increasing width of the foundation
bringing deeper soil layers in the effective zone.
(b) Settlement decreases with increased depth.
(c) Raft foundation equalizes the differential settlement and bridges over the cavities.
Every structure has a limiting differential settlement which it can undergo without
damage. The amount of differential settlement between various parts of a structure
supported on a mat foundation is much lower than that if the same structure was
supported on individual footings and had undergone the same amount of maximum
settlement. With these considerations, maximum total settlement which can be
allowed for a particular structure on mat foundation is more than what is permitted
when the structure is resting on individual footings. This, therefore, allows a higher
bearing capacity for such situations.


2.1.2.5Types of Mat Foundation:
Raft can be classified into various types on the basis of criteria used for classification.
1) Based on the method of their support, raft can be:
(a) Raft supported on soil,
(b) Raft supported on piles
(c) Buoyancy raft.

2) On the basis of structural system for the structure the raft, these can be classified
as:
(a) Plain slab rafts which flat concrete slabs are having a uniform thickness
throughout. This can be with pedestals or without pedestals.
(b) Beam and slab raft which can be designed with down stand beam or up stand
beam systems.

7
(c) Cellular raft or framed raft with foundation slab, walls, columns and one of the
floor slabs acting together to give a very rigid structure.
3) On the basis of various configurations

(a) Flat plate types: In this type a mat of uniform thickens is provided. Its most
suitable for light column loads with small and uniform column spacing.

b) Flat plate thickened under columns: When the column loads are heavy, this type
is more suitable than the flat plate type. A portion of slab under the column is
thickened to provide enough thickness for negative bending moments and diagonal
shear. Sometimes, instead of thickening the slab, a pedestal is provided under each
column above slab to increase the thickness.

c) Beam and slab construction: In this type of construction, the beam run in two
perpendicular directions and slab is provided between the beams. The columns are
located at the intersection of beam. This type is suitable when the bending stresses are
high because of large column spacing and unequal column loads.



8


Figure 2.1 : Various configurations of raft foundations

.

d) Box structures: In this type of mat foundation, a box is provided in which the
basement wall act as stiffness for Mat. Boxes may be made of cellular construction or
rigid frames consisting of slabs and basement walls. This type of mat foundation can
resist very high bending stresses.

e) Mats placed on piles: the mat is supported on piles in this type of construction.
This type of mat is used where the soil is highly compressible and water table is high.

9
This type of construction reduces the settlement and also controls buoyancy.


2.1.2.6 Bearing Capacity of Mat Foundation.

2.1.2.6.1 Raft on cohesion less soil:

The bearing capacity of raft foundations on cohesion less soil depends upon the width
according to Terzaghis bearing capacity theory for shear failure criteria. As the width
of raft foundation is large, so shear failure criteria doesnt govern but safe settlement
criteria governs the design, except for loose sands for which N is less than 5. A
maximum settlement of 50mm can be permissible settlement when the differential
settlement allowed is 19mm.

The safe bearing capacity can be determined as per Tengs (1962)
q
ns
= 0.22N
2
B W



+ 0.67(100+N
2
) D
f
W
q

The safe settlement pressure for a settlement of 25mm is given by,
q
np
= 17.5 (N-3) W

kN/m
2

Where B = Smaller dimensions of raft,
D
f
= Depth of foundation
W

W
q
are water table correction factors.
Where q
ns
and q
np
are in KN/m
2
. The smallest of above values is taken as allowable
soil pressure q
na
Tengs equations for safe settlement pressure are found conservative and Bowels
gave equations for a safe settlement of 25 mm.

q
np
= 12.2N[(B+0.3)/B]
2
R
d
W

Where, =1+0.33 (D
f
/B)
Generally, q
np
= 12.2 N [(B+0.3)/B]
2
R
d
W

(s /25) KN/m
2
,
Where, s= allowable settlement (mm)
Assuming width of raft is large (B+0.3)/B = 1
So q
np
= 12.2N R
d
W

(s/25) KN/m
2

For s = 50mm, above expression becomes,
q
np
=24.4 W

KN /m
2


10

Peck et. al gave above expressions as,
q
np
= 20 N W

KN/m
2
q
np
= 10 KN/m
2

The above expressions are suitable for N value between 5-50.
For N value less than 5, sand needs to be compacted or deep foundation such as pile is
needed. For N value greater than 50 above expressions give unreliable results.
According to IS :6403, for safe settlement of 65mm, the expressions for safe
settlement pressure are given by,
q
np
= 25.4 (N-3) W

qna= 12.7(N-3)
Mostly raft foundations are used below basements and foundations are not usually
backfilled, so the following expression can be written,
Q/A= q
na
+ D
f


2.1.2.6.2 Rafts on Clay:

Skemptons theory is mostly used for rafts on clay,
q
nu
=Cu*N
C

q(nu=) c(u )*5(1+0.2 D
f
/B)(1+0.2B/L)
q(ns=) qnu/F

IS 6403 recommends a minimum factor of safety 2.5, usually F is taken as 3.

2.1.2.6.3 Bearing capacity of raft using Hansens ;Meyerhoffs and Vesics
theory:

Gross ultimate bearing capacity of the mat foundation can be determined by the
following equation:
q
u
=

B
e
N

s

d

i

+ q N
q
s
q
d
q
i
q
+ c N
c
s
c
d
c
i
c

Where, c = Cohesive shear strength
Q = D
f

= effective unit weight of soil above the base of Mat.
e = effective unit weight of soil below the mat.

11
D
f
= depth of mat.
Nc, Nq, N = bearing capacity factors
Nq = e
tan N
N
c
= (Nq-1) Cot
N = (Nq-1) tan(1.4

) according to Meyerhof
N = 1.5 (Nq-1) tan(

) according to Hansen
N = 2(Nq-1) tan() according to Vesic
And, s
,
s
q
s
c
=Shape facors
d
,
d
q,
d
c
= depthe factors
i
;
i
q,
i
c
= Load inclination factor

2.1.2.6.3For Saturated Clayey Soil: (with = 0 and vertically loading
condition):

q
u
= Cu N
c
s
c
d
c
i
c
+ q
wher c
u
is undrained cohesion , N=0, Nq=1, N
c
= 5.14
s
c
= 1+ B/L (Nq/ N
c
) = 1 + 0.195 B/ L, d
c
= 1+ (0.4 D
f
/B) , i
c
=1
So, the expression for net ultimate bearing capacity can be written as,
q
nu
= 5.14 c
u
(1+0.195 B/L) (1+ 0.4 D
f
/B) ( Usually factor of safety is taken as 3)

The values of bearing capacity factors Nc,Nq,N can be obtained from Tabulated
values investigated by various investigators (Terzaghis Hensons, Meyerhoffs,
Vesics are mostly used).



12


Table 2.1 : Table for Bearing capacity factors (H= Hensons, M=Meyerhoffs, V= Vesics
(Source: Advanced Foundation Engineering, Murthy, V.N.S.)



13

Table 2.2 Hansen's bearing capacity factors (source: Advance foundation engg. Murthy, V.N.S)
Where,
Qh = horizontal component of the inclination load
Qu = vertical component of the inclined load
Ca = unit adhesion on the base of the footing
Af = effective contact area of the footing


14

2.1.2.7 Principle of floating raft:
Factor of safety against bearing capacity failure can be represented as,

F= Cu*5(1+0.2 D
f
/B) (1+0.2B/L)/(Q/A- D
f)

When, Q/A= D
f
, implies F=
And D
f
= (Q/A *)
The foundation satisfying above requirements is known to be fully compensated raft
or floating foundation.

2.1.2.8 Design Methods for Mat Foundation:
There are several methods to design a mat (or raft) foundations.
1) Conventional Rigid Method.
2) Approximate flexible Method.
3) Discrete element Methods.
a) Finite difference method
b) Finite element method
c) Finite grid method

2.1.2.9 Factors affecting the behavior of Mat
For design optimization various factors affecting behavior and performance of the
piled raft system are needed to be carefully investigated. Load sharing behavior and
settlement is mostly affected by them. The major factors are as follows:
a. soil conditions viz. (i) physical and elastic properties of soil; (ii) properties of
various strata of soil; (iii) consolidation characteristics of various strata
b. properties of raft viz. (i) physical properties of raft; (ii) elastic properties of raft

2.2 Seismic Soil- Structure Interaction

In seismic analysis of ground & underground structures, consideration of soil-
structure inter action becomes extremely important when the soil or the foundation
medium is not very firm. For this reason, seismic soil-structure interaction analysis
has become a major topic in earth quake engineering. The process in which the
response of the soil influences the motion of structure & the response of the structure

15
influences the motion of the soil is referred to as soil structure interaction or the
interaction between a structure, its foundation and the subsoil is termed as soil
structure interaction action.
The nature & amount of this interaction depends not only the soil stiffness but also on
the stiffness & mass properties of structure. The principal results that can be obtained
from a soil- structure interaction analysis are the stresses & displacements of the
structure & soil. In most of real design problems, the stresses & displacements of the
soil & structure can only be calculated using the numerical method like finite element
analysis.
Foundation of structures, under the action of horizontal forces develop tensile on one
the side & large deformation on another side. Under large deformation the sub grade
reaction is not constant & depends on the settlement of the soil. The separation of
foundation from the soil should be modeled at points where tensile stress develops.
The normal linear analysis for soil- structure interaction does not take these factors
into action & fails to predict accurately the deformations & stresses.
The foundation subjected to extreme horizontal forces develop tensile stress in the soil
.Since soil cannot take any tensile; there will be separation between foundation & the
soil over the region where tension occurs. Since the stress- strain relationship of the
soil non linear, the common assumption that the soil pressure is constant irrespective
the deformation may not be valid. For exact representation of the soil behavior, the
sub grade reaction should be taken as dependent on the deformation. Two important
characteristic that distinguish the dynamic soil- structure interaction system from the
general dynamic structural system are the unbounded nature & non linearity of the
medium. In numerical dynamic soil- structure interaction models, the following
problems should be taken into account.

1. Radiation of dynamic energy into the unbounded soil.
2. The hysteretic nature of soil damping
3. Separation of the soil from the structure
4. Possibility of soil liquefaction under seismic loads
5. Influence of free field ground motion

16

The three cases of the Non linear problems can be stated as
I. Material non linearity
II. Geometric non linearity
III. Material & Geometric non linearity

2.2.1 Soil- Structure Interface Interaction
In 1960s effect of harmonic excitation forces on 2-D rigid surface foundation treated
by analytical modelling successfully. This issues also studied by Luco (1966),
Trifunac (1972) and Wong & Trfunac (1974).The finite element model method
conventional from Luco et al (1974),H.B seed & I.M Idris (1973) & specialized from
A.K Chopra and J.A. Guitierrez ( 1978). Mainly two approaches of treating dynamics
of foundation namely frequency dependent approach and time dependent approach
.The time domain approach is more advantage than frequency domain approach since
it provides directly the response i a natural way and forms the basis for extension to
non linear problems.
Soil-interaction may be regarded as energy transfer between soil and structure through
interface. Besides non linear behaviour of soil and structure ,interface property also
influence of soil structure interaction .As soil and structure have different non-linear
behaviour and stiffness characteristics ,complete contact at the interface is not always
assured .Under reverse cyclic shear soil and structure do not displace equally but
relative displacement ,sliding and separation ,tend to occur along interfacial zone.
Initial interface of soil and structure in complete contact under static loading condition
because of the horizontal earth pressure that soil exerts on structure resulting the self
weight of surrounding soil. Although the assumption of perfect bonding between soil
and structure is reasonable under statics conditions ,rocking of structure can cause
high tensile and shear stress at structure soil contact under strong seismic excitation
,which bring about the interface separation and sliding .In interface ,the yield stress is
determined by Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion.

2.2.2 Modeling Soil - Structure Interaction:


17
It is generally observed that the modeling of the superstructure and foundation are
rather simpler and straight forward than that of the soil medium underneath .However,
soil is having very complex characteristics, since it is heterogeneous, anisotropic and
nonlinear in forcedisplacement characteristics. The presence of fluctuation of water
table further adds to its complexity.
The search for a physically close and mathematically simple model to represent the
soil-media in the soilstructure interaction problem shows two basic classical
approaches, viz. Winklerian approach and Continuum approach .At the foundation-
supporting soil interface, contact pressure distribution is the important parameter .The
variation of pressure distribution depends on the foundation behavior (viz., rigid or
flexible: two extreme situations) and nature of soil deposit (clay or sand etc.).
Since the philosophy of foundation design is to spread the load of the structure on to
the soil, ideal foundation modeling is that wherein the distribution of contact pressure
is simulated in a more realistic manner. From this viewpoint, both the fundamental
approaches have some characteristic limitations. However, the mechanical behaviour
of subsoil appears to be utterly erratic and complex and it seems to be impossible to
establish any mathematical law thatwould conform to actual observation.
In this context, simplicity of models, many a time, becomes a prime consideration and
they often yield reasonable results. Attempts have been made to improve upon these
models by some suitable to simulate the behaviour of soil more closely from physical
standpoint. In the recent years, a number of studies have been conducted in the area of
soilstructure interaction modeling. Winkler (1867), The earliest use of these
"springs" to represent the interaction between soil and foundation was done by
Winkler in 1867; the model is thus referred to as the Winkler method The one-
dimensional representation of this is a "beam on elastic foundation," thus sometimes it
is called the "beam on elastic foundation" method Mat foundations represent a two-
dimensional application of the Winkler method. :


2.3Earthquake in Nepal

18

Accounts of an earthquake on 26 August 1833 which was felt over a large part of
northern India have been interpreted by some authors to represent a great Himalayan
thrust event beneath Western Nepal. However, details of the event in the Indian press
of 1833 and scientific journals of that time, suggest that the epicenter of the
earthquake was near Kathmandu within, or close to, the inferred rupture zone of the
Bihar 1934 earthquake. Estimates of moment magnitude based on reported intensities
indicate that the earthquake was 7.5<M<7.9, and as such may have done little to
release elastic strain accumulating in the region of the Central Himalayan seismic
gap, contrary to the expectation of some authors. The location of the epicenter was
probably N or NE of Kathmandu, adjoining or overlapping the rupture area of the
great 1934 Bihar/Nepal earthquake. The Moment Magnitudes of great Himalayan
earthquakes in 1897, 1905, 1934 and 1950, and smaller recent events are compared
using recently published empirical relations between isoseismal areas and moment
magnitude (Johnston, 1994). When due allowance is made for deficiencies in field
data, reasonable fits are obtained for all events except for the 1905 Kangra
earthquake. The intensity VIII area for this event is anomalously small for an M >8
earthquake associated with several meters of slip. It is proposed that the Kangra
earthquake may have been a slow earthquake.



19

Figure2.2. Intensity reports for the 1833 Nepal earthquake with smooth elliptical isoseismals. In the enlarged view of the
epicentral region (inset above) 1833 intensities are superimposed on isoseismals VII-IX for the Bihar 1934 earthquake (modified
from Dunn et al. 1939, by incorporating data discussed by Pandey and Molnar, 1990). On both occasions high intensity shaking
occurred in the same geographic settings although 1934 isoseismals appear displaced approximately 100 km to the east.. A
possible 1833 epicentral location and moment magnitude is indicated.
The congruence between 1833 and 1934 intensity data is interesting in that in the few
locations that isoseismic intensities disagree they differ by not more than one
intensity unit. The 1934 isoseismals shown in Figure 2.2 are somewhat uncertain within
Nepal since they are formed by merging the isoseismals shown in Dunn et al. (1939)
with intensity data discussed by Pandey and Molnar (1988). Although the resulting
extension of the intensity >VIII data northward can be justified using the authority of
Rana (1934) the position and dimensions of the intensity IX region is conjectural. The
centroid of intensity VIII area for the 1833 earthquake is apparently displaced
approximately 1 degree to the west of the equivalent region for the 1934 earthquake,
consistent with Khattri's 1987 location. This observation is sustained, however, by
three observations only: at Goruckpur, Gorkha and at Chapra (Chuprah) on the
Ganges. Examination of the first two of these reports shows that intensity VIII data
are but weakly supported by the reports. Thus, were the buildings damaged of poor
construction, a lower intensity could be assigned to these villages. The 1833 Chapra
account describes slumping ("a chasm of considerable depth formed") which may
indicate a localized region of high intensity shaking near the Ganges similar to the
narrow intensity IX region in 1934.
Theinclusion of these westernmost VIII intensities in an elliptical fit to this

20

isoseismal results in an 1833 intensity VIII area similar to the inferred 1934 intensity
VIII isoseismal. However, a much smaller region for 1833 intensity VIII is admitted
by the data if the same pattern of localized severe shaking occurred as in 1934. For
example, the sparcity of intensity VIII data in 1833 between Dhankuta and
Dharbanga admits the possibility that the area of intensity VIII shaking could be as
low as 60,000 km
2
or as high as 100000 km2, the latter being the inferred area of
intensity VIII shaking in1934Three regions of severe damage were reported in the
1833 and 1934 earthquakes, an observation that led Dunn et al. (1939) to note a
similarity between the two events: the Kathmandu Valley, a high intensity region
near the Ganges including Monghyr, and a region north of Muzaffarpur. Data near
the slump belt of 1934, a region of catastrophic lateral spreading, is sparse and
although high intensities are recorded near Tirhoot and Purnea (VIII-IX) no
liquefaction features are mentioned here in 1833. The area consists of flat lying
sediments and ox-bow lakes across which numerous rivers meander. Further south, at
Chapra and Monghyr, accounts indicate localized liquefaction near the Ganges, and
minor ground damage is reported to the north, near Bhagmati in the Kathmandu
Valley. Shaking intensities in the Kathmandu valley were similar for both
earthquakes with highest intensities near Patan. Baird-Smith (1843) noted that
damaging shaking at Monghyr frequently accompanies large earthquakes, an
observation repeated both by Dunn et al. 1939, and by Pandey and Molnar 1988. A
favored explanation for localized high intensities in this region is that surface waves
are amplified in the water-saturated sediments as they approach the southward
shelving bedrock surface south of the Gangetic Plain (ibid, 1988). Similarly, the lake
deposits of the Kathmandu valley can be assumed responsible for localized high
intensities and rapid variations in intensity in this region as were observed most
recently in 1988 (Dikshit and Koirala, 1989).
2.3.1Earthquake Loading or Seismic loading
An earthquake is a sudden and violent motion of the earth caused by volcanic
eruption, plate tectonics or men made explosions which lasts for a short time, and
within a very limited region. There are two types of earthquakes horizontal and
vertical motion in amplitude. Measuring of earthquake or seismic effect can be done
in earthquake magnitude and earthquake intensity. A dynamic analysis determines the
structural response based on the characteristic of the structure & nature of earth quake

21
loading. Dynamic methods usually employ the modal analysis technique. This
technique is based on the simplifying assumption that the responses in ea natural
mode of vibration can be computed independently & the modal response s can be
combined the total response
2.3.2Earthquake Intensity
In NBC105:1994, there is not any mention of the Earthquake Intensity used for
categorizing different seismic zones. Seismicity of the region is taken into account by
the value of the zone factor which is obtained from the map showing contour of Z
values. These values are obtained from probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.
In IS1893:2002, the zone categorization is as per MSK scale. The MSK (Medvedev-
Sponheuer -Karnik) intensity broadly associated with the various seismic zones is VI
(or less), VII, VIII and IX (and above) for Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively,
corresponding to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).
The specifications given in IS 1893: 2002 are not based on detailed assessment of
maximum ground acceleration in each zone using a deterministic or probabilistic
approach. Instead, each zone factor represents the effective peak ground accelerations
that may be generated during the maximum considered earthquake ground motion in
that zone. For instance, Zone V covers the areas with the highest risk zones that suffer
earthquakes of intensity MSK IX or greater. It is referred to as the Very High Damage
Risk Zone. The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.36 for Zone V. The zone factor of
0.36 is indicative of effective (zero period ) peak horizontal ground accelerations of
0.36 g (36 % of gravity) that may be generated during MCE level earthquake in this
zone. But it doesnt imply that acceleration in zone V will not exceed 0.36g. For eg.
during 2001 Bhuj earthquake, PGA of 0.6g was recorded. [Dr. Jain, S.K. & Dr. Murty
C.V.R (2005)]
Though, it has been mentioned in few places in the code that the zone factor, Z is for
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and service life of structure in the zone, the
values of Z were arrived at empirically based on engineering judgment rather than on
any rational analysis on expected PGA and service life. [Jain, S.K. (2004)].

22

2.3.3 Soil-Soil Interaction
This is the interaction between a uniformly loaded surface and the unloaded soil
surface at a distance s from the centre of the loaded surface represented in terms of
ss, and expressed as
ss = (Additinal deflection of an unloaded soil surface)/(Deflection of a loaded soil
surface)
A uniform rectangular load in the horizontal or vertical direction is applied on the soil
surface to each area in turn to calculate the deflection of the soil at the desired
positions.
Figure 2.3 Interaction between a loaded surface and an unloaded surface (Small et. al,
2004)
Seismic hazard refers to the study of expected earthquake ground motions at the
earth's surface, and its likely effects on existing natural conditions and man-made
structures for public safety considerations; the results of such studies are published as
seismic hazard maps, which identify the relative motion of different areas on a local,
regional or national basis. With hazards thus determined, their risks are assessed and
included in such areas as building codes for standard buildings, designing larger
buildings and infrastructure projects, land use planning and determining insurance
rates. The seismic hazard studies also may generate two standard measures of
anticipated ground motion, both confusingly abbreviated MCE; the simpler
probabilistic Maximum Considered Earthquake used in standard building codes, and
the more detailed and deterministic Maximum Credible Earthquake incorporated in
the design of larger buildings.
2.3.4 Soil-Structure Interaction Effect
The fundamental objective of a dynamic soil-structure interaction study is to estimate
the motions of one or more foundation buildings at a specific site, from a known free

23
field seismic environment. Accordingly, a complete interaction analysis necessarily
involves firstly the determination of the temporal and spatial variations of the free
field motions and secondly, the evaluation of the motions of the foundation-building
system placed in the free field seismic environment.
The interaction between a vibrating foundation-building system and its supporting
medium produces basically two mechanisms that modify free field ground motions.
One is due to the base shears and overturning moments induced by the structure's own
vibration which, in turn, give rise to soil deformations of increasing magnitude as soil
compressibility becomes higher. This mechanism is usually referred to as inertial
interaction. The other, known as kinematic interaction, develops when any or a
combination of the following conditions exist: i) embedded foundation elements are
stiffer than the surrounding soil, ii) inclined wave trains impinge on the foundation,
and iii) ground motions are incoherent. The influence of these two interaction
mechanisms can be analysed using either the substructure (impedance or continuum)
technique or the complete (direct) approach.
In the substructure procedure the soil-structure system is usually divided in two parts:
i) a finite region which encircles all the geometric irregularities, the structure, and the
nearby soil that might experience inelastic behaviour, and ii) the half space that is
outside of the generalised soil-structure interface, that is modelled with frequency
dependent impedance functions. See Gazetas [1991] for a complete account of these
functions.
On the other hand, the complete method incorporates the soil and the foundation-
building system in a sole model, which is usually developed by means of finite
elements, and analysed simultaneously. It is important to recognise that, as it is not
feasible to cover the complete layered half space with discrete elements, an artificial
boundary should be included in the model to account for the missing layered medium
on the exterior of the interaction region. Artificial boundaries may reflect, into the
foundation-building system, appreciable amounts of the outwardly propagating wave
energy. To minimise this energy-reflection problem, and at the same time to keep the
model within a reasonable size, numerous energy-absorbing boundaries have been
developed [i.e. Lysmer and Waas, 1972; Kausel, 1974].

24

Substructure and complete finite-element procedures are equivalent and if
implemented consistently, identical results should be obtained. Thus, both approaches
are capable of capturing the relevant issues of soil-structure interaction phenomena.
Taking advantage of this fact, many researchers have used finite element methods
with transmitting boundaries to analyse the layered half space and develop various
alternatives for the substructure methods. For embedded foundations, this method can
handle the problem via the rigid boundary [Kausel and Roesset, 1974; Luco et al,
1975], flexible boundary [Gutierrez, 1976] and flexible volume methods [Lysmer,
1978]. Of the three approaches, the last one seems to be the most efficient
[Tabatabaie-Raissi, 1982].
Most of the theoretical developments have been implemented in computer codes.
Among the best known and used to analyse soil-structure problems are FLUSH
[Lysmer et al, 1975], SASSI [Lysmer et al, 1981; Ostadan, 1983] which use finite-
element methods, and CLASSI [Luco et al, 1989] which uses boundary elements to
compute foundation-soil impedances. Wolf and Darve [1986] developed a procedure
that uses boundary elements for an elastic layered far-field region together with a
nonlinear model of the soil and structure near-field zone.
A comprehensive investigation, supported by the European Commission, included the
development of mathematical models, formulation of practical guidelines and
laboratory tests on large scale soil-foundation models [TRISSE, 1999]. As a result of
this project, a hybrid mathematical model that combines the spectral and finite
element spatial discretisation techniques was developed and encoded in the numerical
tool named AHNSE. It can handle three-dimensional problems of wave propagation
and soil-structure interaction. Also it accounts nonlinear soil behaviour. This
computational tool is capable of modelling the complete seismic problem that spans
from seismic source to structural response.

2.4 Instrumentation of Foundation
For many years foundation analysis has been considered as one of the geotechnical
problems better understood and, hence, easier to solve. However, recent seismic
events [i.e. Mexico City, 1985; Loma Prieta, 1989; Northridge, 1994; and Kobe,
1995] have clearly shown that the seismic behaviour of soil-foundation systems is far

25
from being fully comprehended.
To meet the safety and cost requirements of a good design, the engineer must be able
to quantify accurately the input loading, to evaluate properly soil behaviour under this
loading and to make reliable assessments of the soil- foundation system response.
Seismic loading acting upon a soil-foundation system results from the interplay of
earthquake incoming waves with building-swaying-produced waves. The complex
foundation vibration patterns that result from this interaction are difficult, if not
impossible, to predict because they depend on many interrelated factors such as
wave-train characteristics, building-foundation vibration patterns, soil-foundation
interaction, soil behaviour (elastic/inelastic), site geological and geotechnical
characteristics, and pre-earthquake foundation conditions. Furthermore, in dense
urban zones the incoming wave patterns can be modified as compared with
commonly assumed isolated-single-foundation-building conditions, due to their
interaction with waves radiating away from nearby soil-foundation systems.
Accordingly, if foundation seismic loads cannot be quantified adequately, reliable
evaluations of soil behavior and soil-foundation response are, in principle, near-
impossible tasks. Additionally, dynamic soil properties are usually determined from
laboratory tests on nominal undisturbed element samples subjected to loads with
simple wave forms and having boundary conditions far from matching the in situ
ones.
2.4 Effect of Superstructure on Foundation
Methods for the analysis of soil-structure interaction have been developed over many
years. Lee and Brown (1972) developed an analysis by treating the structure,
foundation and soil system as an integral unit. The soil was treated as a Winkler or
linear elastic model. The method was applied to the analysis of a multi-bay frame.
Results have shown that the maximum moment in the foundation decreases with
increasing flexibility of the foundation.
The variation in the stiffness of the structure, raft or soil causes a redistribution of the
force in the system. As the superstructure contributes additional stiffness to the raft,
bending moment in the raft reduces which leads to forces being transferred to the
superstructure and resulted in increasing the bending moment in the structure. Brown

26

(1986) showed that the stiffness of the structure increases progressively during
construction which could have significant effect on the differential settlements in the
raft. Zhang and Small (1994) demonstrated that an increase in the relative stiffness of
the frame will result in a decrease in the differential settlements in the raft.
By taking into account the stiffness of the superstructure in analyzing rafts or piled
rafts, the differential deflections of the raft can be reduced. However, for very flexible
structures, the raft can be analyzed alone without great error. Therefore, neglecting
the superstructure in the analysis can be conservative.
2.5 Dynamic analysis-Time History Analysis
All real physical structures behave dynamically when subjected to load or
displacement (Wilson, 2002). If the loads or displacements are applied very slowly,
the inertia forces can be neglected and static load analysis can be justified, otherwise
dynamic analysis of structures is needed. The dynamic equilibrium equation is second
order differential equation as given by
| | ( ) { } | | ( ) { } | | ( ) { } ( ) { } t F t X K t X C t X M = + +


For seismic loading, the external loading ( ) { } t F is zero. The basic seismic motions are
the three components of free field ground accelerations that are known at the surface
where foundation laid.
| | ( ) { } | | ( ) { } | | ( ) { } | | ( ) { } | | ( ) { } | | ( ) { }
zg z yg y xg x
t X M t X M t X M t X K t X C t X M

= + +

Numerical evaluation of the dynamic response of systems responding beyond their
linearly elastic range is computationally demanding (Chopra, 2007).The only
generally applicable procedure for analysis of an arbitrary set of nonlinear response
equation is by numerical step-by-step integration (Clough and Penzien, 1991). The
most general approach for solving the dynamic response of structural systems is the
direct numerical integration of dynamic equilibrium equation (Wilson, 2002). Direct
numerical integration aims to calculate the value of X and its derivatives at discrete
intervals of time, t. Time history analysis is a step by step analysis of the dynamic
response of a structure to a specified loading that may vary with time.

27
Use of FEM in the analysis of the soil structure interaction has been practiced for
long .Most of the computer software that can capable of analyzing soil structure
interaction are soil-structure interaction are based on this method like SAFE, FLUSH,
SHAKE, WAVE, SWANDYNE, ABAQUA, SASSI etc .Besides some research have
developed their own code for simulating soil- structure interaction for problem area of
their interest.
2.6 Modal Analysis
Modal analysis is used to determine the vibration mode of a structure. These modes are useful
to understand the dynamic behavior of structure. There are two types of modal analysis
namely Eigen vector and Ritz vector analysis. Eigen vector analysis determines the undamped
free vibration mode shapes and frequencies of the system. Ritz vector analysis seeks to find
modes that are excited by a particular loading. Modal analysis is always linear. The mode
shapes and frequencies obtained, provides excellent insight into the behavior of structure
(CSI, 2005).
Eigen vector analysis provides the solution of the general Eigen value problem.
| | | | | | } { } {0
2
= u M w K (Clough and Penzien, 1991) (0.1)
Where [K] is stiffness matrix
[M] - diagonal mass matrix
2
w - Matrix of square of corresponding Eigen values
{} - matrix of corresponding Eigen vector mode shapes
The cyclic frequency and time period and Eigen values are related by
f
T
1
= (0.2)
[
=
2
e
f (0.3)




28

2.6 Finite Element Specific Soil Structure Interaction Modeling

Wegner, Yao & Zhang (2005) used scaled boundary finite element method to model
the 3D soil-structure wave interaction analysis in time domain .Soil Structure
interaction analysis was carried out to obtain the linearly elastic dynamic response of
various tall buildings with multilevel basements subjected to P, SH ,SV wave s at
various angle of incident .They found that the largest deformation of buildings occurs
at the basement levels which are close to the ground surface. P waves cause more
deformation & movement along the input direction & shear waves, SH &SV waves
cause much more inter story drift which is vertical to the input direction.
Prakash & Thakkar (2004) used finite element discretization model to evaluate the
soil structure interaction effects of a massive embedded structures during seismic
excitations. Parametric study on reactor building in response to three different
acceleration spectrums &various sets of soil properties was made 2-D axis metric
model was used for analysis &the surrounding soil medium is modeled in single step
taking 2R depth & 3R is the width of raft .Each element is discredited into eight
building was a function of shear wave velocity as dynamic characteristic & seismic
response variation at various part s in the structure was sensitive up to certain value of
shear wave velocity & not much sensitive after it. The seismic response of a structure
is affected not only by the peak value of acceleration but also depends on dominating
period of an earthquake .The stresses are reduced in soil structure system as
compared to fixed base structure.
Maharaj, Amruthavalli and Nishamathi (2004 ) analyzed frame foundation soil
interaction using 2D plain strain finite element method .The frame &raft have been
considered as an elastic material where as soil has been considered as an elastoplastic
material by DruckerPrager yield criterion. The raft & soil have been discredited into
four nodded isoperimetric element elements while frame members have been
discredited into 2-D truss elements. Newton rapson iterative procedure has been used
to solve the nonlinear finite element equations.
The analyzed the effect raft flexibility & rigidity on frame, &effect of frame stiffness
on flexibility of raft. it was found that effect of flexibility of raft foundation has been
focused to increase the internal forces in superstructure .It was also found that the

29
foundation under goes differential settlement due to its flexibility but increasing the
stiffness of the superstructure or thickness of the foundation it become almost zero
.The overall settlement was found more when the stiffness of the superstructure was
increased keeping the foundation flexible than the case when the foundation stiffness
was increased keeping the superstructure flexible.
Maharaj (2003) presented the results of three-dimensional nonlinear finite element
analysis of piled raft foundation under uniformly distributed load. The raft, pile and
soil had been idealized as a Drucker-Prager elasto-plastic continuum. The load
settlement curves for raft and piled raft had been presented. The effect of soil modulus
and pile length on load settlement behavior of raft and piled raft had also been
presented. Based on analysis it had been found that the ultimate load carrying capacity
of the flexible raft increased with increase in soil modulus and length of pile. Piles
length even less than the width of flexible raft had been found effective in reducing
differential settlement. The increase in soil modulus had been found to reduce the
overall settlement and differential settlement. It had been found that although the
increase in soil modulus reduced the overall settlement, differential settlement
increased with increase in soil modulus for the same overall settlement.
Kuanis & Elamas (2001) developed 2D pain strain finite element software to analyze
seismic soil- structure interaction based on substructure method . Linear& nonlinear
analyses were performed for various peak acceleration values of 0.1g, 0.3g & 0.45g
.Soil plasticity was modeled with the Von Mises failure criterion .In the model only
seismic load was considered & action of gravity was neglected .It was found that at
0.15gaccleration ,the level linear & non linear responses are coincident but as the
acceleration level increases non linear response significant .It was also observed that
that the fixed base analysis gives somewhat greater displacements.
The result of such soil-structure interaction analysis however depends upon how the
problem domain is modeled & boundary condition assigned .The approach of the
model the soil structure system is found to be different.

Ismali & Mullen (2000) carried finite element based on soil _ structure interaction
analysis for nonlinear seismic response of spread footing. Infinite element was used as

30

transmitting boundary condition. The column connecting to the footing was modeled
with the statics forces from the building applied to the top of the rigid column .It was
found that, spring& dashpot have been constantly used to represent viscous - elastic
nature of soil domain however infinite element can be used efficiently as transmitting
boundary conditions instead of dashpot in all level of finite model & under all type of
the dynamic loads especially for large models. It was also found that contact surface
technique is suitable to handle soil structure interaction problem because of its
capability of capturing local non linear behaviors at the soil structure interface. In
a seismic soil structure inter action analysis, it is necessary to consider the infinite &
layer characteristics of soil strata & the non linear behavior of the soft soil.
Robert Jankowski addressed the fundamental questions concerning the
application of the nonlinear analysis and its feasibility and limitations in predicting
seismic pounding gap between buildings. In his analysis, elastoplastic multi-degree-
of- freedom lumped mass models are used to simulate the structural behavior and
non-linear viscoelastic impact elements are applied to model collisions. The results of
the study prove that pounding may have considerable influence on behavior of the
structuresand the soil.

2.7 Site Sub-soil Categories
According to NBC 105:1994 site subsoil has been categorized into three groups- Type
I Rock or Stiff sites; Type II Medium Soil Sites; Type III- Soft Soil Sites.
According to IS 1893:2002 site has been categorized into three groups- Type I Rock
or Hard Soil sites; Type II Medium Soil Sites; Type III- Soft Soil Sites.
According to IBC 2006, site has been categorized into six categories (A, B, C, D,
E&F) based on the average soil properties of top 30m based on soil shear wave
velocity, Standard Penetration Resistant and Soil un-drained shear strength. A- Hard
rock; B- Rock; C- Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock; D- Stiff Soil Profile; E- Soft Soil
Profile; F- based on PI.
In NBC and IS codes, soil properties only at the founding level are considered. In the
earlier editions design seismic forces depended on the factor , which in turn
depended on the type of soil and type of foundation. It is well recognized that the

31
ground shaking depends on the type of soil and not on the type of foundation. Hence,
factor, has been dropped in 2002 edition.
It is advisable to use the average properties in the top 30m rather than just at the
founding level. Some of the soil group symbols used in the IS code are not consistent
with the Standard Soil Classification System. [Dr. Jain, S.K. & Dr. Murthy, C.V.R
(2005)
2.8 Load Combination and Increase in Permissible Stresses
According to NBC 105:1994, the load combinations proposed are
1.5 (DL+LL)
DL + 1.3 LL 1.25EL
0.9 DL 1.25 EL
This results into 9 load combinations.
According to IS 1893:2002, the load combinations proposed are
1.5 (DL+LL)
1.2(DL + LL EL)
1.5 (DL EL)
0.9 DL 1.5 EL
Even though the seismic load is calculated on the basis of seismic weight which
includes only 25% of IL, one must consider full design imposed load in different load
combinations. [Dr. Jain, S.K. & Dr. Murthy, C.V.R(2005)]
The design load combinations included in NBC 105:1994 require reworking. It is well
recognized that the load factors recommended are based on the reliability levels
assumed in the structures. For example, it appears too un-conservative to have load
factor for dead load as 1 and for live load as 1.3 in case of Nepal. The uncertainties
due to non-uniformity of materials, workmanship, quality control seem to be ignored

32

in the load factor for dead load. It is impractical to consider that the uncertainties in
overloading will be covered by maximum of 1.3 factor for live load. IS 456:200, for
example, considers 1.5 for both the dead load and the live load. Similarly, the
maximum load factor value for seismic load considered is just 1.25, both in
combination with 0.9 times dead load, as well as in combination with dead load and
1.3 times live load. The value of 1.25 is too low in view of the large uncertainties
involved in the assessment of the seismic load.
2.9 Modulus of sub grade reaction of soil (Ks):
Soil medium, because of the nonlinear, stress-dependent, anisotropic and
heterogeneous nature, has very complex mechanical behavior. Hence, instead of
modeling the subsoil in its three- dimensional nature, subgrade is replaced by a much
simpler system, called a subgrade model that dates back to the nineteenth century.
Searching on this concept leads to two basic approaches which are Winkler approach
and the elastic continuum model. Both of these models are of widespread use, both in
theory and engineering practice.Winkler (1867) assumed the soil medium as a system
of identical but mutually independent, closely spaced, discrete and linearly elastic
springs. The ratio between contact pressure (P) at any given point, and settlement (y)
produced by load application at that point, is named thcoefficient of subgrade
reaction, Ks:

The coefficient of subgrade reaction, Ks, identifies the characteristics of foundation
supporting and has a dimension of force per length cubed.Many researches including
Biot (1937), Terzaghi (1955), Vesic (1961), and most recently Vallabhan (2000) have
investigated the effective factors and determination approaches of Ks. Geometry and
dimensions of the foundation and soil layering are assigned to be the most important
effective parameters on Ks. Generally, the value of subgrade modulus can be
obtained in the following alternative approaches:


33
1. Plate load test, 2. Consolidation test, 3. Triaxial test
and 4. CBR test
2. Many researchers have worked to develop a technique to evaluate the
modulus of subgrade reaction, K
s
. Terzaghi (1955) made some recommendations
where he suggested values of K
s
for 1x1 ft rigid slab placed on a soil medium;
however, the implementation or procedure to compute a value of K
s
for use in a
larger slab was not specified. Biot (1937) solved the problem for an infinite beam
with a concentrated load resting on a 3D elastic soil continuum. He found a
correlation of the continuum elastic theory and Winkler model where the maximum
moments in the beam are equated. Vesic (1961) tried o develop a value for K
s
, by
matching the maximum displacement of the beam in both aforementioned models.
He obtained the equation for K
s
for using in the Winkler model. Another works by
Filonenko-Borodich (1940), Heteneyi (1950) and Pasternak (1954)... attempt to
make the Winkler model more realistic by assuming some form of interaction among
the spring elements that represent the soil continuum.
K shall be determined from the following relationship (IS 2720 part XII -1972)


E
s
= Modulus of elasticity of soil
E = Young's modulus of foundation material
= Poisson's ratio of soil and
I = Moment of inertia of structure if determined or of the foundation

The estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction, is Vesic's equation (1961). It is
based on elastic parameters of soil medium like elasticity modulus of soil, E, and
Poisson ratio.


34


Where,
Ks= modulus of subgrade reaction
E = elasticity modulus of soil
B = width of foundation
= Poisson ratio

2.10 Damping
Any real structure will dissipate energy by several mechanisms, mainly through
friction. This can be model by modifying the Displacement Amplification Factor
(DAF):


The typical value 2%-10% depending on the type of construction:
- Building with earth quake = 2-5%
- Reinforced concrete = 2- 7%
- Soil = 5-15 % ( A.K. chopra )
Generally damping would be ignored for non-transient events (such as wind loading
or crowd loading), but would be important for transient events (for example, impulse
load such as a bomb blast and earthquake






35
3.METHODOLOGY
3.1 General Approach of modeling

In order to evaluate the Seismic gap between building foundation as well as structure
the nonlinear link soil support used for dynamic a procedure on sample building was
adopted with mat foundation .The details of the building are reproduced in section
3.2.The finite element analysis software SAP2000version 14 Nonlinear [31] is utilized
to create 3D model and run all analyses. The software is able to predict the geometric
nonlinear behavior of soil -mat under static or dynamic loadings, taking into account
both geometric nonlinearity and material inelasticity. The software accepts static
loads (either forces or displacements) as well as dynamic (accelerations) action and
has the ability to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses.

3.2 Model used in the analysis: Detail of the Model
The model which have been adopted for study is eight storey (G+8) building. The
buildings consist of square column with dimension 500mm x 500mm, all beams with
dimension 350mm x 250mm. The floor slabs are taken as 125mm thick. The
foundation height is 1.5m and the height of the all four stories is 3 m. The modulus of
elasticity and shear modulus of concrete have been taken as E = 2.5 x10
7
kN/m
2
and
G = 1.06 x10
7
kN/m
2
.
Model has been considered for the purpose of the study.
Eight storey (G+8) with mat foundation of (22m*14m) size having thickness
800mm.The plan and other relevant data for superstructure and substructure are
presented below. This Model is analyzed based on both methods for soil data at 2
locations (NIDC, Durbarmarga and city properties, Kalanki). Summary of soil
properties adopted in analysis are presented below.First the model of superstructure
has been run on SAP, and then column loads have been found, then for such loads, the
thickness of the raft, area of the raft and assigning the soil linkthen dynamic analysis
is done by using Elccentro (1940)and Kobe earthquake of japan (1995) . Hence
substructure has been designed and then analyzed.

36

3.2.1 Structural and Material property
Column = 500mm * 50mm
Beam = 350mm* 250mm
Mat thickness = 800mm
M25 concrete
M20 concrete

3.2.2 Static loading on model from super structure:
3.2.2.1 Gravity load
Gravity load on the structure include the self weight of beams, columns, slabs, walls
and other permanent members. The self weight of beams and columns (frame
members) and slabs (area sections) is automatically considered by the program itself.
The wall loads have been calculated and assigned as uniformly distributed loads on
the beams.
Wall load = unit weight of brickwork x thickness of wall x height of wall. Unit
weight of brickwork = 20KN/m
3
Thickness of wall = 0.125m

37
Wall load on roof level =20 x 0.125 x 1=2.50KN/m (parapet wall height = 1m)
Wall load on all other levels = 20 x 0.125 x 3 = 7.50KN/m (wall height = 3m)
3.3.2.2 Live loads have been assigned as uniform area loads on the slab elements
as per IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002
Live load on roof 2 KN/m
2

Live load on all other floors 4.0 KN/m
2

As per Table 8, Percentage of Imposed load to be considered in Seismic weight
calculation, IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002, since the live load class is up to 3 KN/m
2
, 25%
of the imposed load has been consideredand above for required live load .
IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002.

3.3 Effect of soil boundary condition and Load transfer
From the previous literatures it was seen that the effective foundation geometry
considered in the model comes out to be the twice the width of the dam on either side
and three times the base width underneath. The vertical stress contour satisfies well
With the pressure bulbs obtained by the classical theory of soil mechanics.

The load transfer by the links was verified .the model with vertical wall resting over
the soil foundation were created .The use of links was found very useful to create an
environment close to the reality .this advantage of links is from the property that links
can be allowed its own characteristic properties and can be assigned degree of
freedom and nonlinearity.

3.4 Software used in Analysis
The SAP name has been synonymous with state-of-the-art analytical methods since
its introduction over 30 years ago. SAP2000 follows in the same tradition featuring a
very sophisticated, intuitive and versatile user interface powered by an unmatched
analysis engine and design tools for engineers working on transportation, industrial,
public works, sports, and other facilities.SAP 2000 is finite element structural
analysis program developed by computer and structures, Inc. 1995, university
Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 USA. It is 3D based graphical modeling
environment to wide variety of analysis and design options completely integrated

38

across one powerful user interface. It can analyze the structure by taking linear
or non-linear material properties.

SAP 2000 is a powerful structural tool in which complex Models can be
generated and meshed with built in templates. Integrated design code features can
automatically generate wind, wave, bridge, and seismic loads with comprehensive
automatic steel and concrete design code checks per US, IS, Canadian etc. SAP
2000 can analyze from a simple small 2D static frame analysis total large complex
3D nonlinear dynamic analysis, SAP 2000 is the easiest, most productive solution
for structural analysis and design in structural engineering. (Source: SAP 2000
3.4 Seismic Input ground motion
Seismic Input are the earthquake data that are necessary to perform different types of
seismic analysis. Various data may be required depending upon the nature of
analysis carried out. Seismic input for structural analysis are provided either in time
domain or frequency domain or in both time and frequency domain. The most
common way to describe a ground motion is with a time history record ( Datta,
2010). Ground motion parameters may be acceleration, velocity or displacement or
all three combined together. Generally, the directly measured quantity is the
acceleration and the other parameters are the derived quantities. Ideally these ground
motions would be actual earthquake records from the region where the structures are
located. However, actual earthquake records in Nepal are not available remarkably.
This is due to the fact that we should not have enough technical capability and
instrumental setup for accurate earthquake recording and strong ground motion is
also very occasional event. Therefore, the ground motions assumed for use in this
research El- centro ground motion (1940)in USA has peak ground acceleration
0.319g and rescaled 1g in each 0.1g increment for study of maximum displacement
demand of structure system resting different soil modulus sub grade reaction . Peak
ground acceleration is used to rescale actual time history to higher and lower level of
shaking. .Quake loads have been defined considering the response spectra for
medium soil as per site requirement


39
Figure 3.1 : Plan of model mat of Finite Discretization
Column to column distance along X = 5m
Column to column distance along Y = 4m
Mat dimension = (22m* 14m)
Mat thickness = 800mm











Figure 3.2 : XZ section of(G+8) storey 24m high building

40

Figure 3.3 : 3-D of model with soil property link support







41
Required Peak Ground acceleration for rescaled in different high value for excitation
of Model



Figure 3.4 Time history plot of Elcentro Earthquake (1940) in USA










42




Figure3.5 : time history Elcentro earthquke Forcing Function on model Sap 2000 version 14

43
Project :
Location : NIDC Building , Durbarmarga
Client :
Consultants :
Bore Hole No : BH-2
Diameter of BH, mm :
RL of GWT : 6.70 m
Date :
Logged By :
Prepared By :
Checked By :
Certified By :
Scale Depth Thickness Group Soil
1=50cm Depth Type Symbol Symbol Value
Each m m m N
0.00
1.50 SPT 9 8 9 17
3.00 SPT 10 9 9 18
4.00
4.50 SPT 10 9 8 17
6.00 SPT 8 9 10 19
7.50 SPT 10 11 12 23
9.00 SPT 9 12 14 26
9.80
10.50 SPT 13 14 14 28
11.50
12.00 SPT 8 9 10 19
13.50 SPT 7 7 10 17
14.90
15.00 SPT 4 5 6 11
15.50 UDS
16.50 SPT 3 4 5 9
18.00 SPT 4 4 5 9
19.50 SPT 5 6 5 11
20.00
20.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
MULTI Lab (P) Ltd.
BORE HOLE LOG
Sampiling
Soil Classification
SPT (Field Record)
30 cm 45 cm 15 cm
4.00
Fillings materials including sand, silt,
pieces of brick & gravels
3.40 Dark gray to white medium silty sand
5.80 Gray to white medium silty sand
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of low plasticity,
traces of sand & gravels
SP
CL
1.70 Dark gray sandy clayey silt of low plasticity CL
SP
25.10
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of low plasticity
including traces of sand & gravels
CL
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of low plasticity,
traces of sand
CL
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of low plasticity,
traces of sand
CL
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of low plasticity,
traces of sand
CL

Table 3.1: Soil data from borehole log, Durbarmarga

44

Project Name :
Location : City properties , Soalteemod (Kalanki)
Bore Hole No : 1
Diameter of BH, mm : 100mm
RL of GWT, m : 2.00
Date : 2065-07-26 to 2065-07-29
Scale Depth Thickness Group Soil SPT
1= 0.5m Depth Type Symbol Symbol Value
Each m m m N
0-0.50
1.50 SPT 8
3.00 SPT 9
4.50 4.50 SPT 10
5.75
6.25 0.50 6.00 SPT SP 9
7.50 SPT 14
9.00 SPT 16
10.50 SPT 15
12.00 SPT 16
13.50 SPT 16
15.00 SPT 16
16.50 SPT 16
18.00 SPT 16
19.50 SPT 15
21.00 15
22.50 15
24.00 15
25.00 25.50 14
Light gray medium silty sand
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of mediumj
plasticity
MI
15.25 MI
Vegetable top soil
4.00
1.25
Sampling
Soil Classification
BORE HOLE LOG
MI
Light brown siltyclaye of medium
plasticity
Dark gray stiff clayey silt of medium
plasticity

Table 3.2: Soil data from borehole log , Kalanki

45
4.ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Data required for analysis :
Following parameters are considered for the analysis.
1) Bearing Capacity Determination:
a) Corrected SPT number

Where,
N
60
=Corrected n value for 60% hammer efficiency.
N
o
= Observed SPT Value (N-Value)

H

=hammer efficiency (%) = 60%

B

=correction for borehole diameter = 1.0

s
=Sampling techniques = 1

R

=Rod length correction = 0.85

b) Undrained shear strength of clay (c
u
)
According to Stroud (1974).

Where;
K=constant=3.5-6.5kN/m
2
. Adopted K= 4.4kN/m
2

N
60
=Standard penetration number obtained from the field.

c) Unconfined compressive strength
(For cohesive soil) Peck et. At (1974)

Here, N
cor
= N
60,
K= 12 (Bowels 1996)


d) Bearing Capacity For Mat:
i) Shear strength Criteria
According to Skemptons,
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity (q
ult
),

46

For factor of safety =3,
Allowable soil bearing capacity becomes.

Allowable Load, Q
1
=q
all
A

ii) Settlement Criteria
Total Settlement(S) = Elastic Settlement (S
e
) + Consolidation Settlement (S
c
)
a) Elastic Settlement Se: According to Schleicher

Where;
B=Width of Mat
E
s
= Elasticity of soil
= Poisions Ratio of soil.
q
n
= net foundation pressure
I
f
= Influence factor.

b) Consolidation Settlement(Sc):

Where;
m
v
=Coefficient of Volume change
p=load pressure
H = thickness of soli layer
Allowable bearing load,
Adopted allowable Bearing Load of Raft (Qraft
)
= Lesser of Q
1
and Q
2
.

2) Modulus of Elasticity of Soil
According to Schmertmann et al(1978).
For Normally consolidated clay.
E
s
= 250C
u
to 500C
u

Adopted E
s
= 375 C
u

3) Modulus of Sub-grade reaction:

47
According to Vesic(1961)

Therefore,
Stiffness of soil (spring constant) K
s
= Area of mesh*k = (b*s)*k
s
(kN/m)
Where;
b =width of mesh and s=length of mesh

4) Raft/ Beam elements
Concrete grade=M25Mpa,
Modulus of ElasticityE =2.5x10
7
kN/m
2,

Poisson ratio =0.2

Modeling data mat foundation:
Two different models having different plan area and stories are taken.
Data for column loads after running model on software are as shown below

Loads from superstructure model for Foundation design:

TABLE: Joint Reactions

Joint OutputCase CaseType F3
Text Text Text KN
360 COMB1 Combination 807.398
361 COMB1 Combination 814.864
362 COMB1 Combination 822.329
363 COMB1 Combination 829.793
364 COMB1 Combination 837.255
365 COMB1 Combination 806.736
366 COMB1 Combination 814.202
367 COMB1 Combination 821.667
368 COMB1 Combination 829.13
369 COMB1 Combination 836.593
370 COMB1 Combination 806.073
371 COMB1 Combination 813.539
372 COMB1 Combination 821.004
373 COMB1 Combination 828.468
374 COMB1 Combination 835.93

48

375 COMB1 Combination 805.41
376 COMB1 Combination 812.876
377 COMB1 Combination 820.341
378 COMB1 Combination 827.805
379 COMB1 Combination 835.267
Total Load 16426.68 KN

Table 4.1: total loads on column
Bearing capacity calculation and preliminary design for model
(For city properties data):
For homogeneous soil with average N value of 10.
Corrected SPT value,
N
60
= C
N
N
0
E
h
C
d
C
s
C
b
For, C
N
=1 (for cohesive soil), N
0
=10, C
d
=1, C
s
=1, C
b
=0.85 we have, N
60
= 5
N
60
= 5 implies soil is medium clay.
From correlations between N and unconfined compressive strength,
q
u
= (50-100) kPa, choosing q
u
= 80kPa and undrained cohesion c
u
= 40kPa
a) From shear failure criteria:
For mat size of (22m *14m) , Using skemptons equation, D
f
= 1.5

) (

q
ns =
77.02 KN/m
2

Hence gross safe bearing capacity, q
s
= q
ns
+ D
f
=107.02 KN/m
2
b) From settlement criteria:
i) Consolidation settlement (s
c
) = m
v*
* H
(Calculating settlement upto 3 B = 42m below mat)

For m
v
= 0.046 cm
2
/kg, sc = 0.0066056 qna
ii) Elastic settlement:

From correlations E
S =
(300-500)c
u,
Selcting, E
s
= 375 c
u
=11250kPa, ,
I
f
=0.96, s
e
= 0.00165q
na


49
Total settlement =Consolidation settlement (s
c
) + Elastic settlement (s
e
) =0.00715q
na

Allowable settlement of mat = 125mm=0.125m
q
na
=16.22 KN/m
2

Gross safe bearing capacity q
s
= q
na
+ D
f
=96 KN/m
2

Selecting lower value of bearing from shear failure and settlement criteria,
q
s
=96 KN/m
2

Hence allowable raft load = Bearing capacity * Area = 96*22*14=29568 kN
Hence remaining load for which pile group has to be designed
= Total load from superstructure - allowable raft load


Fixing of the depth of Mat:
For model :
Depth of raft is selected for no punching shear under the heaviest column load.
Punching stress Permissible shear stress (K
s
c)
[837.255* 1.5*1000] / [4(1000+d) d] = (0.5+ B
c
) *0.25 (f
ck
)
0.5
Solving, d = 555.12 mm
Choosing depth of raft (d) = 800 mm

Calculation of consolidation settlement for model:

Where;
m
v
=Coefficient of Volume change = 0.046 cm
2
/kg = 4.6*10
-4
m
2
/KN
Settlement for Mat:
p , for calculating settlement upto
3 B= 42 m below foundation. At mid of clay layer z=21m, L= 22m, B=14m,
q= Load /Area =53.33 KN/m
2
, H = thickness of soli layer=42m
We get, Sc= 526.45mm




50

Summary of the Time History Analysis
Time History
with PGA
Maximum
Displacement
(mm)
Time
(Sec)
Displacement at
40.00 sec(mm)
Remarks
0.319g

23.46 7.440 0
0.4g

32.02 7.448 0.050
0.5g

41.86 7.456 -0.282
0.6g

53.18 7.464 -1.29
0.7g

65.32 7.464 -1.80
0.8g

77.20 7.472 1.15
0.9g

90.85 7.480 16.99
1.0g

116.45
15.35

37.85

Table 4.2: Maximum displacement at foundation joint








51



Figure 4.1 : Displacement TH PGA 1.g in z-direction



Figure 4.2: Displacement TH PGA 0.9 in z-direction
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Sec )
Displacement(mm)

-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Sec)
Displacement(mm)


52



Figure 4.3 : Displacement TH PGA 0.8 g in x-direction



Figure 4.4 Displacement TH PGA 0.6 g in x-direction




-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Sec)
Displacement(mm)
DDisplacement(mm)
(mm(mm
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Seconds)
Displacement(mm)

53

Figure 4.5: Displacement TH PGA 0.5 g in x-direction


-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Sec)
Displacement(mm)

54




Figure 4.6: Displacement TH PGA 0.4 g in x-direction





Figure 4.7: Displacement TH PGA 0.319 g in x-direction


-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Seconds)
Displacement (mm)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Sec)
Displacement(mm)


55




Figure 4.8: Displacement TH PGA 1.g in z-direction






Figure 4.9: Displacement TH PGA 0.8g in z-direction



-2.50E-04
-2.00E-04
-1.50E-04
-1.00E-04
-5.00E-05
0.00E+00
5.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.50E-04
2.00E-04
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)
-2.50E-04
-2.00E-04
-1.50E-04
-1.00E-04
-5.00E-05
0.00E+00
5.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.50E-04
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)

56


Figure 4.10: Displacement TH PGA 0.7g in z-direction



Figure 4.11: Displacement TH PGA 0.6g in z-direction
-2.50E-04
-2.00E-04
-1.50E-04
-1.00E-04
-5.00E-05
0.00E+00
5.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.50E-04
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)
-1.50E-04
-1.00E-04
-5.00E-05
0.00E+00
5.00E-05
1.00E-04
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)

49



Figure 4.12: Displacement TH PGA 0.5g in z-direction




Figure 4.13: Displacement TH PGA 0.4g in z-direction

-1.00E-04
-8.00E-05
-6.00E-05
-4.00E-05
-2.00E-05
0.00E+00
2.00E-05
4.00E-05
6.00E-05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)
-2.00E-05
-1.50E-05
-1.00E-05
-5.00E-06
0.00E+00
5.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.50E-05
2.00E-05
2.50E-05
3.00E-05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)


50



Figure 4.13 Displacement TH PGA 0.319g in z-direction











.








-2.00E-05
-1.50E-05
-1.00E-05
-5.00E-06
0.00E+00
5.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.50E-05
2.00E-05
2.50E-05
3.00E-05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement(m)

51

2

Figure 4.15 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.319g



Figure 0.16 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.4g
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec )
Acceleration(m/s2)


-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration (m/s2)



52





Figure 4.17 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.5g




-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration (m/s2)



53

Figure 4.18 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.6g



Figure 4.19 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.7g

-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration (m/s
2
)


-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration (m/s2)



54




Figure 4.20 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.8g

2
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration (m/s2)


-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration(m/s2)



55
Figure 4.21Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 0.9g

Figure 4.22 Acceleration time history for acceleration TH with PGA 1.0g












-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)
Acceleration (m/s
2
)



56

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Conclusions:
The following major conclusions are from the current study.
1. More response at ground level due high amount spectural acceleration (Sa) of
rescaled ground motion.
2. Nonlinear displacement behavior obtained during excitation of rescaled ground
motion for soil material non linearity assignment in terms modulus sub grade
reaction.
3. Assurance of sesmic gap between structure-foundation between the adjacent
building known permanent deformation of supporting material.
4. Time loading corresponds deformation amount is calculated in linear (response
spectrum analysis) and dynamic analysis.
5. Effect of shear wave velocity on force deformation with time.
6. True nonlinear constitutive relationship of soil with foundation.
Recommendations:
Fast infrastructure development and buildings foundation are first to be made on medium
soft soil. So buildings and bridge without using Mat are difficult to imagine.. Due to
variety of soil conditions over country the following topics are recommended for
academic interest application of structure on reality.
1) Study of piled raft under dynamic loading conditions.
2) Study of mat foundation for seismic loading under non-homogeneous soil.
3) Study of seismic vulnerability exsiting mat foundation
4) Bearing capacity analysis using finite element method.
5) liqueifaction potential under the mat foundation.
6) Seismic ponding effect of mat foundation.
7. Effect of pore water pressure and seepage on the Foundation.
REFERENCES:

57

1. Acharya, Niraj Acharya Numerical modeling of soil structure interaction, I.O.E.
Pulchowk Campus, 2008.
2. Acharya, MohanPrasad Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Dynamic Behavior
of Soil and Foundation System, I.O.E. PulchowkCampu, 2004.
3.Paudel, Prof. Dr. Ram Krishna and Neupane, Er. Ramesh, A Text Book of soil
mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Heritage Publishers and Distributeors Pvt.
Ltd.
4. Arora ,Dr. K.R Soil mechanics & Foundation Enginering seventh edition 2008.
5.Bowels,JosephE., Foundation Analysis & Design 5
th
ed. McGraw hi lint.Ed.
Singapore
6. Datta, T.K., Seismic Analysis of Structure.
7. Kramer ,S.L.(1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering ,Pearson Education
Inc.,Upper Saddle River ,NJ.
8. Ismali M .Ismali& Mullen Chris ,Soil-Structure Interaction Issuse for Three
Dimensional Coputational Simulation of Nonlinear Seismic Response , 14
th

Engineering Mechanics Conference ,American Society of civil engineering , May 21-
24,2000.
9. MaharajDilipK., Amruthavvalli A.&Nishamatihi K, Finite element analysis for
frame foundation soil- interaction , Electronic journal of Geotechnical Engineering
,Volume 9,2004.
10. Prakash S &Thakkar S.K Evaluation of Soil structure Interaction effect of Massive
Embedded Structure during Seismic excitation IE Journal ,2004.
11. Wegner J.L, Yao M.M& Zhang X Dynamic Wave Soil-Structure Inter action
Analysis in the Time Domain Computer & Structure , ELSEVIER,2005.

58

12. Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar , BehzadFatahi&BijanSamali ,Effect of Dynamic Soil
- Structure Interaction on Performance level of Moment Resisting Buildings
resisting on Different Type of Soil Earthquake Resilient Society 14-16
April,2011,Auckland ,New Zealand
13. Potts D.M and Zdravkovic L., Finite Element Analysis in Geotchnical Engineering
Analysis and application ,Thomas Telford ,2001.
14. Madabhushi S.P Gopal, modeling of deformation in Dynamic soil- Structure
problems , Lecturer ,Department of Engineering ,Cambridge University ,England.
15. Cook Robert D. Finite Element modeling for stress analysis University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
16. ZuoDelong , Numerical modeling of dynamic Soil Structure Interacting during
Earthquakes.
17. Technical SAP and SAFE Tutorials.
18 Coduto, Donald P. (2001), Foundation design: principles and practices, Prentice Hall
Pvt. Ltd. pp. 363-369.
19.Gupta, S. Chandra (2007), Raft Foundation Design And Analysis With A Practical
Approach, New Age International.
20.Morshed, A.S.M. Monzurul (1996.), A Design Rationale for Mat Foundation Based
on Finite Element Analysis.
21.Peck , R.B., Hanson , W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974), Foundation Engineering 2nd
Edition , John Wiley & Sons , New York, pp.514.

22. Jain, S.K.(2004) Review of Indian Seismic Code, IS 1893 (Part I):2002, Journal of
Structural Engineering

23. S.K. Duggal, Earthquake Resistance design structure, Oxford Press,New Delhi.
24. Chopra, A.K. (1996), Dynamics of Structure: Theory and Application to Earthquake
Engineering, Eastern Economic Edition, Prentice Hall of India .

59