A Seminar on

ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE SUPPORTED BY ELASTIC

FOUNDATION

SUPERVISED BY SUBMITTED BY
DR.S.K. TIWARI ANKIT SURI
Associate Professor (2010PST125)

DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, JAIPUR
December 2011
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
Soil is a very complex material for the
modeling.
It is very difficult to model the soil-
structure interaction problem.
In RCC buildings slab on grade is a very
common construction system e.g. mat
footing
Very heavy slab loads occur in these
structures.
For safe and economical design, compute plate

displacement and stresses accurately.

Difficult to obtain samples for testing producing

results in accordance with ground behavior.

Necessary to make simplifying assumptions.

 SCOPE OF STUDY
To develop a workable approach for analysis of plates

on elastic foundations.

Structural Engineers go for simplified assumptions of

rigid foundation

STAAD Pro is used to incorporate the elasticity of soil

that will provide approximate solutions as close to the

exact solutions.
 TYPES OF FOUNDATION MODELS
The plate-foundation system is idealized as a thin

elastic plate resting on a linearly elastic foundation.

Various foundation models were given by the

investigators which are discussed ahead.

 WINKLER MODEL
 Winkler first studied beam on elastic springs

 Model based on the pure bending beam theory.

p = Kw

Here, w = vertical translations of the soil

p = contact pressure
K = modulus of subgrade reaction
Plates based on Winkler model involve fourth order
differential equation:
D ▼4 w+ Kw = q

Here D is the plate flexural rigidity, q is the pressure

on the plate and▼ is the Laplace operator.

The deformations outside the loaded area were

neglected and taken as zero.
DEFORMATION OF A UNIFORMLY LOADED PLATE
ON TYPICAL WINKLER MODEL

Source : Kerr A. D., "Elastic and visco-elastic foundation models." Journal of

Applied Mechanics, ASCE, 31, 1964. p. 491-498
Winkler foundation model has two major limitations:

 No interaction between springs is considered.

 The spring constant may depend on a number of

parameters, such as stiffness of beam, geometry of

beam, soil profile, and behavior.

 FILONENKO BORODICH MODEL

Top ends of springs connected to a elastic membrane

stretched to constant tension T.

It was done to achieve some degree of interaction

between the spring elements,

Modulus of subgrade reaction is given by

p = Kw – T ▼2 w
FILONENKO-BORODICH FOUNDATION MODEL

Source : Kerr A. D., "Elastic and visco-elastic foundation models." Journal of

Applied Mechanics, ASCE, 31, 1964. p. 491-498
 HETENYI MODEL
Embedded a plate in the three-dimensional case in the material
of the Winkler foundation to accomplish interaction among
springs.

 Assumed that the plate deforms in bending only.

p = Kw + D▼2 ▼2 w
Here, p = load
w = vertical translation
D = flexural rigidity of plate.
PASTERNAK FOUNDATION MODEL
Pasternak assumed shear interactions between spring
elements.

Connecting the ends of springs to a beam or plate

consisting of incompressible vertical elements, which
can deform only by transverse shear.

p = Kw - G ▼2 w
 TIMOSHENKO MODEL

This model is based on Timoshenko beam theory

Plane sections still remain plane after bending but are

no longer normal to the longitudinal axis.

This model considers both the bending and shear

deformations.
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION
Pressure sustained per unit deformation of subgrade at
specified deformation or pressure level.

Calculated from plate load test from the plot of q versus δ

K = q/δ

Here , q = mean bearing pressure

K = modulus of subgrade reaction
δ = mean settlement
 LOAD DEFORMATION CURVE FROM PLATE
BEARING TEST

Source : Bowles J E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1982
 DETERMINATION OF MODULUS OF
SUBGRADE REACTION
TERZAGHI

His work showed that value of k depends upon

dimensions of area acted upon by subgrade reaction.

He incorporated shape and size effects in his

equations
For footings on clay: k = k1 x Bf

For footings on sand : k = k1 *

For rectangular footing on sand of dimensions b x mb:

k = k1*

Where,
k = desired value of modulus of subgrade reaction

k1 = value of k from a plate load test

Bf = footing width
 VALUES OF K FOR SLAB ON WINKLER
FOUNDATION
Boit found that he could obtain a good correlation with the
Winkler model for the maximum moment case by setting the
value of k as follows:

Where,
Es = modulus of elasticity of soil
vs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil
B = modulus of elasticity of the beam
I = moment of inertia of the beam
• Vesic showed that K depends upon the stiffness of the
soil, as well as the stiffness of the structure.

• Vesic’s work extended Boit’s solution by providing the

distribution of deflection, moment, shear and pressure
along the beam.

• He found the continuum solution correlated with the

Winkler model by setting
Bowles (1982) suggested an indirect method of
approximate estimation of the value of modulus of
subgrade reaction.

 According to him it may be assumed that net ultimate

bearing capacity of a footing occurs at a settlement of
25 mm.

 qnu = cNCSC + γ1DfNqSqrw + 0.5 γ2BN γS γrw’

k = = 40 qnu
 Values of modulus of subgrade reaction
(suggested by Bowles 1982)
Type of Soil K (KN/m2/m)
Loose sand 4800 - 16000
Medium dense sand 9600 - 80000
Dense sand 64000 - 128000
Clayey medium dense sand 32000 - 80000
Silty medium dense sand 24000 - 48000
Clayey soil : qu < 200 Kpa 12000 - 24000
200<qu<400 Kpa 24000 - 48000
qu> 800 Kpa >48000
 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND STRUCTURAL
MODELLING
STRUCTURAL MODEL

 Three-dimensional structure is modeled for the

analysis utilizing the STAAD Pro software.
 The plan dimensions of the building are 34.92 m x
16.85 m.
 The Structure has 10 (G+9) stories with height of 3.66 m
each.
 The raft is modeled with the structure.

 The total area of the raft is divided into finite number

of plates.

 The soil under the raft slab is represented by a set of

springs for which the spring constants k, adjusted to

reflect the corresponding soil type.

PLAN OF THE STRUCTURE
3 D VIEW OF STRUCTURE
MEMBER AND RAFT SIZES
BEAM SIZE - 300mm X 450mm

COLUMN SIZE – 450mm X 600mm

RAFT SLAB is divided into finite number of plates

Approximately 1.0m x 1.0m plates are used.

Thickness is taken as 600mm.

SUPPORTING SOIL MODELLING IN STAAD
STAAD has a facility for automatic generation of
spring supports specified under the SUPPORT
command.

The modulus of subgrade reaction constant k for each

soil type is taken as 10,000 kN/m3, 45,000 kN/m3, and
95,000 kN/m3, representing soft, medium, and stiff soil,
respectively
 DESIGN LOADS
DEAD LOAD (IS: 875 PART 1-1987)

 Self weight of floor slabs = 0.15 x 25 = 3.75 kN/m2

 Weight of floor finish (4 inches thick) = 0.1 x 20 = 2

KN/m2

 Weight of flooring (1 inch thick) = 0.025 x 26.70 (marble)

= 0.6675 KN/m2
 Incidental load due to partition wall = 1.0 KN/m2 (as per
clause 3.1.2 of IS 875 Part II)
 Dead load of wall (230 mm thick) = 19 x 0.23 x 3.66 = 16
kN/m
 Dead load of plaster on wall = 2 x 0.012 x 20 x 3.66 =
1.76 kN/m
 Dead load of parapet wall = 19x0.23 x 1.0 + 2 x 0.012 x
20 x 1.0 = 4.85 kN/m
 IMPOSED LOAD (IS: 875 - 1987 PART II)
The magnitude of minimum imposed load which has
to be considered for the structural safety is provided in
IS: 875 -1987 (part II).

Here imposed load of intensity 3kN/m2 and 4kN/m2

have been taken as per the code and same is applied in
all floors.

On the roof it is taken as 1.5kN/m2.

 SEISMIC LOAD (IS: 1893 - 2002)
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear Vb
is computed in accordance with the IS 1893 (Part I) -2002

Vb = A h x w

Where
Calculation of base shear is carried out for structure
located in seismic zone IV.

 Z = 0.24

 I = 1.0 considering the structure is of general category.

 R = 3 for OMRF
 PRIMARY LOAD COMBINATIONS
 ELX
 ELZ
 DL
 LL
Where,
ELX = Earth-quake Load in X-direction
ELZ = Earth-quake Load in Z-direction
DL = Dead Load
LL = Live Load
 LOAD COMBINATIONS
1. 1.5 (DL + IL)
2. 1.2(DL + IL + ELX)
3. 1.2 (DL + IL - ELX)
4. 1.2 (DL + IL + ELZ)
5. 1.2 (DL + IL - ELZ)
6. 1.5 (DL + ELX)
7. 1.5 (D L - ELX)
8. 1.5 (DL + ELZ)
9. 1.5 (DL - ELZ)
10. 0 .9 DL + 1.5 ELX
11. 0 .9 DL - 1.5 ELX
12. 0 .9 DL + 1.5 ELZ
13. 0 .9 DL - 1.5 ELZ
 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
It has been observed that the stiff stratum at the base

does not change the design forces significantly.

The bending moments at the base of the columns under

gravity loadings show a greater increase for soft soils as

compared to the medium and soft soil.
As the stiffness of the soil strata increased, structure

behavior became closer to that observed for rigid

supports.
BENDING MOMENT FOR EXTERIOR
COLUMNS FOR 1.5(DL+LL) TABLE 7.2
MZ (K=10000 MZ (K= 45000 MZ (K= 95000
Floor KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) MZ
Level Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node node node node node node node
-1 90.23 -4.288 71.75 3.88 58.22 7.1 -5.78 14.76
0 -23.32 22.61 -17.78 20.44 -17.38 21.05 -17.6 23.95
1 -23.92 25.44 -24.08 24.61 -25.01 25.34 -27.59 27.83
2 -27.03 28.09 -26.73 27.57 -27.49 28.27 -29.49 30.27
3 -30.1 30.87 -29.44 30.19 -30.06 30.8 -31.86 32.52
4 -32.49 33.19 -31.66 32.35 -32.19 32.87 -33.74 34.36
5 -34.5 35.07 -33.55 34.11 -34.01 34.56 -35.37 35.87
6 -36.27 36.56 -35.19 35.52 -35.59 35.92 -36.79 37.09
7 -38.02 38.25 -36.76 37.06 -37.09 37.4 -38.15 38.46
8 -38.67 44.27 -37.32 41.57 -37.62 41.54 -38.57 42
9 -27.2 35.55 -29.11 36.51 -30.15 37.59 -32.2 39.96
BENDING MOMENT FOR INTERIOR
COLUMNS FOR 1.5(DL+LL) TABLE 7.4
MZ (K=10000 MZ (K= 45000 MZ (K= 95000
Floor KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) MZ
Level Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node node node node node node node
-1 -71.34 34.43 -33.93 18.76 -20.21 12.95 -1.63 1.91
0 -15.57 20.89 -7.82 11.38 -6.1 8.85 -2.88 4.27
1 -22.85 23.55 -13.44 14.24 -10.63 11.57 -5.38 6.65
2 -24.69 24.53 -15.45 15.36 -12.79 12.74 -7.78 7.84
3 -24.51 24.76 -15.47 15.76 -12.92 13.22 -8.18 8.53
4 -24.68 24.43 -15.78 15.57 -13.3 13.12 -8.72 8.57
5 -23.99 23.64 -15.22 14.92 -12.81 12.52 -8.34 8.08
6 -23.17 22.83 -14.52 14.23 -12.16 11.88 -7.77 7.53
7 -22.52 22.3 -13.95 13.74 -11.62 11.41 -7.29 7.08
8 -22.14 22.26 -13.76 14.16 -11.51 11.99 -7.29 7.96
9 -22.33 28.4 -13.06 16.72 -10.48 13.48 -5.68 7.42
ABRUPT CHANGE IN BENDING MOMENTS AT THE
BASE FOR FOUNDATIONS ON SOFTER SOILS
Generally this portion of the structure is not given

consideration in most of the practical designs which

are based on the assumption of rigid support system.
DEFLECTION PROFILE FOR CASE OF FIXED
SUPPORT FIG 6.12 (a) (EQX)
DEFLECTION PROFILE FOR CASE OF
ELASTIC SUPPORT FIG 6.12 (b) (EQX)
For seismic forces, magnitude of bending moments in

the columns and beams of the structure increase with

the increase in modulus of subgrade reaction.

The structure on soft soil deflects as a whole body (Fig

7.12.)

The relative displacements between successive floors

are less for structure on soft soils.

BENDING MOMENTS AT SUPPORT OF BEAM
CONNECTED TO EXTERIOR COLUMN FOR EQX TABLE 7.5
MZ MZ MZ
Floor Level (K=10000 (K= 45000 (K= 95000
KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) MZ
-1 -66.13 -82.68 -88.7 -98.66
0 -145.49 -160.56 -165.81 -176.13
1 -152.31 -165.77 -170.47 -179.92
2 -146.86 -159.63 -164.04 -172.85
3 -137.6 -149.74 -153.89 -162.12
4 -124.37 -136.00 -139.94 -147.7
5 -106.25 -117.47 -121.25 -128.64
6 -82.38 -93.29 -96.95 -104.07
7 -52.20 -62.87 -66.44 -73.34
8 -14.78 -25.38 -28.94 -35.87
9 5.16 -2.30 -4.86 -9.89
BENDING MOMENT FOR INTERIOR COLUMNS FOR EQX
TABLE 7.1
MZ (K=10000 MZ (K= 45000 MZ (K= 95000
Floor KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) MZ
Level Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node node node node node node node
-1 43.03 58.72 81.58 50.88 96.99 47.59 132.59 43.88
0 124.62 -61.32 133.36 -70.07 136.09 -73.02 142.35 -78.43
1 83.7 -76.61 90.08 -83.36 92.4 -85.72 97.32 -90.48
2 75.24 -76.9 82.02 -83.38 84.37 -85.63 89.07 -90.1
3 69.48 -74.61 75.82 -80.76 78 -82.87 82.35 -87.04
4 62.47 -71.04 68.52 -76.92 70.58 -78.91 74.65 -82.83
5 52.8 -65.42 58.61 -71.08 60.58 -72.99 64.43 -76.72
6 40.32 -57.49 45.93 -62.99 47.82 -64.83 51.5 -68.4
7 24.42 -46.36 29.89 -51.74 31.72 -53.54 35.27 -57.03
8 5.45 -33.09 10.79 -38.33 12.57 -40.04 16 -43.31
9 -18.65 5.33 -13.16 -2.17 -11.31 -4.73 -7.65 -9.76
 STOREY DRIFT
For soft soils very significant increase in displacements

of the structure can occur when subjected to lateral

forces due to earthquake.
For EQX forces deflection at the top floor was 10 to 12%

more for structure supported on soft soils than that

observed for the case of fixed supports.
Storey drift along exterior column for EQX
K=10000 K= 45000 K= 95000
Floor Level Fixed KN/m2/m KN/m2/m KN/m2/m
0 11.512 13.667 12.402 12.111
1 23.868 27.329 25.229 24.752
2 36.398 41.148 38.218 37.56
3 48.657 54.682 50.93 50.09
4 60.334 67.627 63.054 62.037
5 71.903 79.648 74.256 73.059
6 80.541 90.357 84.144 82.77
7 88.23 99.321 92.283 90.726
8 93.7 106.074 98.205 96.465
9 96.81 110.536 101.792 99.861
Storey drift along interior column for
EQX
K=10000 K= 45000 K= 95000
Floor Level Fixed KN/m2/m KN/m2/m KN/m2/m
0 11.478 13.426 12.281 12.024
1 23.76 26.907 24.997 24.569
2 36.277 40.559 37.883 37.288
3 48.447 53.941 50.509 49.752
4 60.111 66.759 62.579 61.658
5 70.892 78.677 73.754 72.672
6 80.38 89.297 83.635 82.395
7 88.116 98.158 91.759 90.363
8 93.6 104.766 97.628 96.078
9 96.633 108.958 101.067 99.352
 MORE BM IN MEMBERS DUE TO
DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT IN SOFT SOILS.
The softer the soil, the more the differential

settlement.

This differential settlement resulted in an increase in

bending moments of raft slab.

 BENDING MOMENT CONTOURS FOR
RAFT UNDER SEISMIC LOADS
EQX and 1.2 (DL+LL+EQX) loading conditions have

been studied.
The moments in the raft have been affected by the

change in the values of the modulus of subgrade

reaction K, which is responsible for differential
settlement of raft slab.
BM variations in raft slab for K = 10000
kN/m2/m in EQX loading case
BM variations in raft slab for K = 45000
kN/m2/m in EQX loading case
BM variations in raft slab for K = 95000
kN/m2/m in EQX loading case
BM variations in raft slab for K = 10000
kN/m2/m in 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) loading case
BM variations in raft slab for K = 45000
kN/m2/m in 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) loading case
BM variations in raft slab for K = 95000 in
kN/m2/m 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) loading case
As the value of modulus of subgrade reaction
decreases the differential settlements increase leading
to an increase in both the hogging and sagging
bending moments.

The hogging moments produce tension at the top and

can cause the foundation to loose contact with soil.

Hence due consideration must be given to the elastic

nature of soil in design.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
The soil structure interaction must be considered in
the design of structures.

At the design stage, specific effort must be made to

find the realistic value of modulus of subgrade
reaction depending on the type of soil, so that we can
get the exact design forces for optimum design
solution.
 REFERENCES
Bowles J E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1982
Kerr A. D., "Elastic and visco-elastic foundation
models." Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASCE, 31, 1964.
p. 491-498.
Daloglu A. T. and Vallabhan C. V. G., "Values of K for
slab on Winkler foundation" Journal of Geotechnical
and Geo-environmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No.5,
2000 p. 361-371.
Fwa T.F., Shi X.P. and Tan S.A. , "Use of Pasternak
foundation model in concrete pavement analysis"
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 122, No.4,
1996 p. 323-328
Horvath J. S., "Modulus of subgrade reaction: new
perspective," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
109, No. 12, 1983, p. 1591-1596.
Liou G. S. and Lai S.C., "Structural analysis model for
mat foundations," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
122, No.9, 1996. p. 1114-1117.
Mishra R. C. and Chakrabarti S. K., "Rectangular plates
resting on tensionless elastic foundation: some new
results", Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 122, No
4, 1996. p. 385-387.
Shi X.P., Tan SA and Fwa T.F., "Rectangular thick plate
with free with free edges on Pasternak foundation"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 120, No.5, 1971-
1988.
STAAD Pro V8i, Structural Analysis and Design
Package, Research Engineers.
Stavridis L. T., "Simplified analysis of layered soil-
structure interaction," Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 128, No.2, 2002. p. 224-230.
Wang C. M., Xiang Y. and Wang Q., 2001,
"Axisymmetric buckling of reddy circular plates on
Pasternak foundation," Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, Vol. 127, No 3
Yin J-H., "Comparative modeling study of reinforced
beam on elastic foundation" Journal of Geotechnical
and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(3),
2000. p 265-271.
IS 875(Part 1): 1987: Indian Standard Code of Practice for
Design Loads (Other than earthquake loads) For Buildings
and Structures. (Dead Loads)
IS 875(Part 2): 1987: Indian Standard Code of Practice for
Design Loads (Other than earthquake loads) For Buildings
and Structures. (Live Loads)
IS 875(Part 5): 1987: Indian Standard Code of Practice for
Design Loads (Other than earthquake loads) For Buildings
and Structures. (Special Loads and Load Combinations)
IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002: Indian Standard Code of Practice for
Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures.
(General Provisions and Buildings)
IS 456: 2000: Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of
Practice
THANK YOU