A Seminar on

SUPERVISED BY
DR.S.K. TIWARI
Associate Professor

SUBMITTED BY
ANKIT SURI

(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:
4
D 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 + D2 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
K = q/

Here , q = mean bearing pressure

K = modulus of subgrade reaction
= 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 = Poissons 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.

Vesics work extended Boits 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 + 1DfNqSqrw + 0.5 2BN S rw

k =

= 40 qnu

Values of modulus of subgrade reaction

(suggested by Bowles 1982)
Type of Soil
Loose sand
Medium dense sand
Dense sand
Clayey medium dense sand
Silty medium dense sand
Clayey soil : qu < 200 Kpa
200<qu<400 Kpa
qu> 800 Kpa

K (KN/m2/m)
4800 - 16000
9600 - 80000
64000 - 128000
32000 - 80000
24000 - 48000
12000 - 24000
24000 - 48000
>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 = Ah 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

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

LOAD COMBINATIONS

1.5 (DL + IL)

1.2(DL + IL + ELX)
1.2 (DL + IL - ELX)
1.2 (DL + IL + ELZ)
1.2 (DL + IL - ELZ)
1.5 (DL + ELX)
1.5 (D L - ELX)
1.5 (DL + ELZ)
1.5 (DL - ELZ)
0 .9 DL + 1.5 ELX
0 .9 DL - 1.5 ELX
0 .9 DL + 1.5 ELZ
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
Floor
Level
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MZ (K=10000
KN/m2/m )
Bottom Top
node node
90.23 -4.288
-23.32 22.61
-23.92 25.44
-27.03 28.09
-30.1 30.87
-32.49 33.19
-34.5 35.07
-36.27 36.56
-38.02 38.25
-38.67 44.27
-27.2 35.55

MZ (K= 45000 MZ (K= 95000

KN/m2/m )
KN/m2/m )
MZ
Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node
node node node node
71.75
3.88
58.22
7.1
-5.78 14.76
-17.78 20.44 -17.38 21.05 -17.6 23.95
-24.08 24.61 -25.01 25.34 -27.59 27.83
-26.73 27.57 -27.49 28.27 -29.49 30.27
-29.44 30.19 -30.06 30.8 -31.86 32.52
-31.66 32.35 -32.19 32.87 -33.74 34.36
-33.55 34.11 -34.01 34.56 -35.37 35.87
-35.19 35.52 -35.59 35.92 -36.79 37.09
-36.76 37.06 -37.09 37.4 -38.15 38.46
-37.32 41.57 -37.62 41.54 -38.57
42
-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

Floor
Level
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MZ (K= 45000

MZ (K= 95000

KN/m2/m )
KN/m2/m )
KN/m2/m )
MZ
Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node node node
node node node node
-71.34 34.43 -33.93 18.76 -20.21 12.95 -1.63
1.91
-15.57 20.89 -7.82 11.38
-6.1
8.85
-2.88
4.27
-22.85 23.55 -13.44 14.24 -10.63 11.57 -5.38
6.65
-24.69 24.53 -15.45 15.36 -12.79 12.74 -7.78
7.84
-24.51 24.76 -15.47 15.76 -12.92 13.22 -8.18
8.53
-24.68 24.43 -15.78 15.57
-13.3 13.12 -8.72
8.57
-23.99 23.64 -15.22 14.92 -12.81 12.52 -8.34
8.08
-23.17 22.83 -14.52 14.23 -12.16 11.88 -7.77
7.53
-22.52 22.3 -13.95 13.74 -11.62 11.41 -7.29
7.08
-22.14 22.26 -13.76 14.16 -11.51 11.99 -7.29
7.96
-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
Floor Level
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MZ
(K=10000

MZ
(K= 45000

MZ
(K= 95000

KN/m2/m )

KN/m2/m )

KN/m2/m )

-66.13
-145.49
-152.31
-146.86
-137.6
-124.37
-106.25
-82.38
-52.20
-14.78
5.16

-82.68
-160.56
-165.77
-159.63
-149.74
-136.00
-117.47
-93.29
-62.87
-25.38
-2.30

-88.7
-165.81
-170.47
-164.04
-153.89
-139.94
-121.25
-96.95
-66.44
-28.94
-4.86

MZ
-98.66
-176.13
-179.92
-172.85
-162.12
-147.7
-128.64
-104.07
-73.34
-35.87
-9.89

BENDING MOMENT FOR INTERIOR COLUMNS FOR EQX

TABLE 7.1
MZ (K=10000

MZ (K= 45000

MZ (K= 95000

KN/m2/m )
KN/m2/m )
Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node node node

KN/m2/m )
MZ
Bottom Top Bottom Top
node node node node

-1

43.03

58.72

81.58

50.88

96.99

47.59

132.59

43.88

124.62

-61.32

133.36

-70.07

136.09

-73.02

142.35

-78.43

83.7

-76.61

90.08

-83.36

92.4

-85.72

97.32

-90.48

75.24

-76.9

82.02

-83.38

84.37

-85.63

89.07

-90.1

69.48

-74.61

75.82

-80.76

78

-82.87

82.35

-87.04

62.47

-71.04

68.52

-76.92

70.58

-78.91

74.65

-82.83

52.8

-65.42

58.61

-71.08

60.58

-72.99

64.43

-76.72

40.32

-57.49

45.93

-62.99

47.82

-64.83

51.5

-68.4

24.42

-46.36

29.89

-51.74

31.72

-53.54

35.27

-57.03

5.45

-33.09

10.79

-38.33

12.57

-40.04

16

-43.31

-18.65

5.33

-13.16

-2.17

-11.31

-4.73

-7.65

-9.76

Floor
Level

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
Floor Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Fixed
11.512
23.868
36.398
48.657
60.334
71.903
80.541
88.23
93.7
96.81

K=10000
KN/m2/m
13.667
27.329
41.148
54.682
67.627
79.648
90.357
99.321
106.074
110.536

K= 45000
KN/m2/m
12.402
25.229
38.218
50.93
63.054
74.256
84.144
92.283
98.205
101.792

K= 95000
KN/m2/m
12.111
24.752
37.56
50.09
62.037
73.059
82.77
90.726
96.465
99.861

Storey drift along interior column

for EQX
Floor Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Fixed
11.478
23.76
36.277
48.447
60.111
70.892
80.38
88.116
93.6
96.633

K=10000
KN/m2/m
13.426
26.907
40.559
53.941
66.759
78.677
89.297
98.158
104.766
108.958

K= 45000
KN/m2/m
12.281
24.997
37.883
50.509
62.579
73.754
83.635
91.759
97.628
101.067

K= 95000
KN/m2/m
12.024
24.569
37.288
49.752
61.658
72.672
82.395
90.363
96.078
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, 19711988.

 STAAD Pro V8i, Structural Analysis and Design

Package, Research Engineers.

Stavridis L. T., "Simplified analysis of layered soilstructure 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