INTRODUCTION

Objective and Scope

The scope of this project is to have a comparative study of different rock

anchors (i.e., active rock anchor system and passive rock anchor system) for
ensuring the stability of structures and limiting the lift-off (loss of contact) under
earthquake load situation.
 INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CODES

IS 456:2000 Indian Standard Code of Practice of Plain and

Reinforced Concrete
IS 1893(Part 1): 2002 Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures Part1-General Provisions and
Buildings
IS 1786:2008 Indian Standard “High Strength Deformed Steel Bars
and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement- Specification”
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

STRUCTURE

Building taken for analysis is a framed structure of 5 storeys consisting of

3x3 bays. Each storey is separated by 5m distance in height. While span of
each bay is 6m in both mutually perpendicular horizontal directions. The
structure is supported on raft foundation of 2m thickness. The centre core is
kept open surrounded by shear wall. Also ground floor consists of peripheral
basement wall. The thickness of slab at each floor is 0.2m, while thickness of
basement wall and shear wall was taken as 0.6m. Dimensions of beam and
column were 1.2mx0.6m and 1.2mx1.2m respectively. Except ground floor
other floors consists of brick wall of 0.23m thickness along the perimeter of
each floor.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

STRUCTURE

The structure selected as above to approximately simulate the behavior of

nuclear building raft of KAPP-3&4, in a manner wherein the centre core
represents the containment structures of nuclear building while outside bays
represents other framed structures present on nuclear building raft. This
simple assumption was taken up to do a comparative study of different rock
anchors for ensuring stability of this structure and limiting the lift-off (loss of
contact) under earthquake load situation.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

MATERIAL

Following are different properties of concrete:

 Characteristic Strength:
Concrete Grade adopted for raft is having a characteristic 28 days
compressive strength (cube) of 45.0 MPa (fck).
 Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
As per clause no.6.2.3.1 of IS 456:2000 the modulus of elasticity of
concrete is, E= 5000fck i.e., 33540 MPa.
 Poisson’s ratio for concrete is taken as 0.2.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

ROCK ANCHOR SYSTEM

Active Rock Anchor

Active rock anchors are prestressed rock anchor provided in raft to ensure the stability and
to limit the lift-off (loss of contact) under earthquake loading or loading arising due to
seasonal buoyancy. These rock anchors remains in stressed condition even in absence of
any event-induced loading. The initial prestressing force given to rock anchor pulls the
structure downward ensuring the stability and limiting the lift-off of structure in absence or
presence of event-induced loading.
For study of active rock anchors systems, prestressed rock anchors with a spacing of 3.0m
(force mobilization of 175T per rock anchor) are provided along the perimeter of raft.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

ROCK ANCHOR SYSTEM

Passive Rock Anchor

Passive rock anchor start carrying load and controls the upward displacement of raft with
respect to the founding medium as soon there is separation of raft from the supporting
medium under action of any event-induced loading.
For study of passive rock anchors systems, passive rock anchors were distributed uniformly
over the entire raft area in a rectangular grid pattern with a spacing of 3.0m c/c in both the
directions. The passive rock anchors consist of Single ribbed reinforcement bar of 45mm
dia. with grade of Fe500 (material conforms to IS 1786:2008).
Analysis of the raft has been carried out with a free length of passive rock anchors of 1000
mm.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

ROCK ANCHOR SYSTEM

Passive Rock Anchor

Details of individual rock anchors are as follows:
Stiffness of rock anchor = (E * A) / Lf = 32434.61366 T/m
Where, E = Modulus of elasticity = 2.0e+05 MPa
A = Area of anchor bar= 1590.4mm2
Lf = Free Length = 1000mm
Capacity of Rock anchor = A*fy = 81.09 T
Where, fy = yield stress of steel = 500MPa
 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

DESIGN LOADS

Dead load (DL): Comprising of self-weight of the raft and the dead load of all the
structural components of structure. Dead weight of floor finish at each floor is considered as
0.1 t/m2 and is applied as uniformly distributed load. Dead weight of roof finish at roof is
considered as 0.25 t/m2 and is applied as uniformly distributed load. Dead weight of brick
wall at each floor except ground floor is considered as 2.0 t/m3 and is applied along the
perimeter of each floor except ground floor.

Live Load (LL): Live load of 0.4 t/m2 is applied as uniformly distributed load on each
floor, i.e. on slab at each floor and raft top
 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

DESIGN LOADS

Uplift Water Pressure (UL): Uplift water pressure of 6 t/m2 is applied as uniformly
distributed load at the bottom of raft and Uplift water pressure of 7.5 t/m2 is applied as
linearly varying load at the basement wall.

Earthquake load (EL): According to IS 1893(Part 1): 2002 the Base Shear Force was
calculated as show below:-
Zone Factor, Z=0.24 (for Zone IV from table 2)
Importance Factor, I=1.5 (from table 6)
Response Reduction Factor, R=4.0 (from table 7, case no :-(ix))
 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

DESIGN LOADS

Approximate fundamental natural period of vibration is given by

Ta=0.09h/√d (clause 7.6.2)
= 0.424264068 sec (h=20m; d=18m)
Average Response Acceleration Coefficient is given by
Sa/g=2.357022604 (clause 6.4.5)
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient is given by
Ah=Z*I*Sa/(2*R*g) (clause 6.4.2)
Ah=0.106066017
 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

DESIGN LOADS

Base shear forces were multiplied by a factor of 2 to get the sufficient lift-off for comparative
study of different rock anchors. The seismic forces thus obtained are distributed across 4
columns at each floor. Hence, Seismic Forces (in tonnes) at each column in both horizontal
orthogonal directions is: -
1.0 ELx 0.4 ELy
@ Raft = 0.0 0.0
@ 1st floor = 7.626122 3.0504491
@ 2nd floor = 26.426770 10.5707081
@ 3rd floor = 59.460233 23.7840932
@ 4th floor = 105.707081 42.2828324
@ 5th floor = 111.500190 44.6000759
 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

DESIGN LOADS

The seismic forces thus obtained have been applied to the building as equivalent static load at
appropriate locations along the height of building.

Active rock anchor load (RAL):

Due to prestressing of rock anchor a downward concentrated force of 175 ton is applied at a
spacing of 3.0m c/c along the perimeter of raft.
 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

LOAD COMBINATIONS

For raft without any rock anchor system and with passive rock anchor system a load
combination for worst possible condition is given by: -
Load combination (LC-1) - DL+UL+1.0 ELx + 0.4 ELy
For raft with active rock anchor system a load combination for worst possible condition is
given by: -
Load combination (LC-2) - DL+UL+1.0 ELx + 0.4 ELy +RAL
Thus analysis of raft has been carried for above load combination.
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

Modeling of Building
3-D Finite element model of the building including the raft has been developed using
commercially available general-purpose software NISA. The finite element model of the
building including the raft is developed using the following types of element:
(i) 3-D General Shell Element is used to model raft, floors, shear wall and basement wall.
(ii) 3-D Beam Element is used to model the beams and columns.
(iii) 3-D General Spring Element is used to model foundation stiffness.
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

F.E Model of Building

 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

F.E Model of Raft F.E Model of Building

(Cross-Sectional View)
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

Modeling of Foundation Medium

The modulus of sub-grade reaction is estimated as per Vesic's equation, which is as follows:
 Er  Er B 4
ks B  0.65     12
2
1   Ef I f
Where, ks =Modulus of subgrade reaction in T/m3
B =Least width of footing in meter =18 m
Er=Average modulus of elasticity rock =1.42 X 106 T/m2
Ef=Elastic modulus of concrete as per IS: 456-2000=5000 fck = 3.354 x 106 T/m2
If=Moment of inertia of footing in cross-section=Bd3/12
=12 m4 for raft thickness of 2m
=1.5 m4 for raft thickness of 1m
=Poisson’s ratio for rock =0.26
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

Modeling of Foundation Medium

The modulus of subgrade reaction calculated using above expression comes out to be
(for raft thickness of 2m) , ks = 109071.956 T/m3
(for raft thickness of 1m) , ks = 47641.565 T/m3
The raft is analyzed considering the following stiffness values of springs in the vertical
direction:-
for raft thickness of 2m for raft thickness of 1m
@ Corner nodes kz = 61352.9752 T/m 26798.3804 T/m
@ Edges nodes kz = 122705.9505 T/m 53596.7608 T/m
@ Inner nodes kz = 245411.9010 T/m 107193.5216 T/m
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

Modeling of Foundation Medium

The stiffness value of soil springs in the two horizontal orthogonal directions shall be taken
as fh times that of the soil spring in the vertical direction where fh is given by
fh = 2x(1-2)/ z
Where, x, z= geometric constants that are functions of the dimensional ration L/B.
Here L/B=1, =>x=0.9
=>z=2.05
fh = 0.818692682
Thus stiffness values of soil springs in the two horizontal orthogonal directions are:-
for raft thickness of 2m for raft thickness of 1m
@ Corner nodes kx = ky= 50229.2319 T/m 21939.6379 T/m
@ Edges nodes kx = ky= 100458.4637 T/m 43879.2758 T/m
@ Inner nodes kx = ky= 200916.9274 T/m 87758.5517T/m
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

FINITE ELEMENT IDEALIZATION

Finite Element Model Details of Raft

The FE model details are given below
Number of Nodes [only for Raft] : 169
Number of shell elements (NKTP-20) [only for Raft] : 144
Number of spring elements (NKTP-38) [only for Raft] : 169
Boundary Condition used in the Analysis
UX, UY, UZ = 0 at the bottom of the spring elements
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

APPLICATION OF LOADS

Dead load of the structure is computed by NISA software based on the unit weight of the
concrete.
Uplift water pressure is applied as upward pressure on the raft and also on the basement
wall as lateral pressure.
Dead weight of brick wall is applied as concentrated load of 3.45 t on each node along the
perimeter of each floor except ground floor (i.e., raft). Dead weight of floor finish at each
floor is considered as 0.1 t/m2 and is applied as uniformly distributed load on raft and all slab
excluding topmost slab. Dead weight of roof finish at roof is considered as 0.25 t/m2 and is
applied as uniformly distributed load at topmost slab.
Seismic forces are applied at column on each floor (except raft).
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

LOAD COMBINATION WISE ANALYSIS

Iterative Analysis of Raft without Any Rock Anchor System

The raft is analyzed for the load combination LC-1 in an iterative manner, starting with
normal soil springs. When tension occurs in any of the soil springs, then these spring
elements are discarded (i.e., the stiffness of those springs is made negligible). Iterative
analysis continues in this fashion till convergence is achieved. The convergence of the
analysis in load combination is considered to be reached when the equilibrium of forces is
met without any spring being discarded in two successive iterations. The total influence area
of discarded soil spring elements gives the lift-off area.
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

LOAD COMBINATION WISE ANALYSIS

Iterative Analysis of Raft with Active Rock Anchor System

The raft is analyzed for the load combination LC-2 in an iterative manner as discussed in
above slide. The convergence of the analysis in load combination is considered to have
reached when the equilibrium of forces is met without any spring being discarded in two
successive iterations. The area of lift off is computed from the influence area of those
discarded soil springs.
 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

LOAD COMBINATION WISE ANALYSIS

Iterative Analysis of Raft with Passive Rock Anchor System
The raft is analyzed for the load combination LC-1. Here only compression spring stiffness
is considered in the analysis. The raft is analyzed for the load combination in an iterative
manner, starting with normal soil springs. When tension occurs in any of the soil springs, the
stiffness of those springs is modified to axial stiffness of passive rock anchors. If the induced
tensile stress in the rock anchor springs exceeds 0.9fy, the rock anchor is considered to be
yielded, then these spring elements are discarded and equivalent downward force
corresponding to 0.9fy is applied back on the raft. Iterative analysis continues in this fashion
till convergence is achieved, i.e., when no spring is discarded in two consecutive iterations.
The percentage yielding is computed from the ratio of influence area of those discarded
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
From Table-1 we get that in case of active rock anchors lift-off (loss of contact) was
limited to great extent than in case of without any rock anchors. While for passive rock
anchors lift-off is of no concern and there is no yielding of any passive rock anchor.
Also from Table-1 it can be concluded that maximum design bearing pressure values are
generally highest for active rock anchor system while lowest for passive rock anchor
system due to presence of prestress forces in raft in case of active rock anchor system.
While maximum upward displacement of raft element was least for active rock anchor
system. Maximum upward displacement of raft element got increased significantly when
thickness of raft was reduced.
Raft thickness of 1m with lesser values of modulus of subgrade reaction has lesser lift-off
than the raft with same thickness with modulus of subgrade reaction same as that of 2m
thick raft as stiffness of soil springs is reduced.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From Table-2 it can be clearly seen that maximum design bending moments are always
greatest for active rock anchor systems while for passive rock anchor system it is the least. By
reducing stiffness of soil spring maximum design bending moments got increased.

Displacement contours showing the lift-off of raft in various cases are shown in slide 34 to 42.
The variations of MXX and MYY along the diagonal of raft are shown in slide 43 to 60.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
There are some major differences in active and passive rock anchor system.
Active rock anchor are always in stressed condition due to mobilization of prestress force
even in absence of any uplift of raft.
While passive rock anchor takes up load as soon as any uplift in raft occurs due to
earthquake load or seasonal buoyancy.
There exists a possibility of leakage of ground water up to top of raft while using active
rock anchor system as it needs to be anchored on the top of raft, because prestressing of
the cable is done after the construction of the whole raft.
While chances of leakage of ground water reduces when using passive rock anchor system
as passive rock anchor can be embedded up to first pour itself.
Passive rock anchor system is more effective than active rock anchor system in ensuring
stability of structures and limiting the lift-off (loss of contact) under earthquake load situation,
as passive rock anchors can be distributed uniformly over the entire raft area in a
rectangular grid pattern while active rock anchor are best effective when distributed along
the periphery of raft.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

Passive rock anchors are best alternative of active rock anchors due to following reasons: -
the lift-off (loss of contact) is limited to great extent by passive rock compared to active rock
anchors
Chances of leakage of ground water reduced as passive rock anchors can be embedded in
first pour itself.
Bearing pressure below the raft is reduced
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

FUTURE SCOPE

The observation and conclusion drawn from this study is specific to the structural system
adopted. For general conclusion in this aspect there is a need to extend this work to other
different types of structural system.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
THANK YOU