Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
.
Dynamics Analysis of Structures – Investigation Into Analysis of Raft Foundation
Dr. R. K. Ingle1
1
Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Visvesvarya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India 440 011, email:
rkingle@[Link], rkingle@[Link]
ABSTRACT
A raft foundation supports numerous columns distributed evenly through a thick reinforced concrete raft. It is used when
heavy loads exist relative to soil capacity. Raft foundations, however, are suited to seismic regions due to their continuity and
inherent rigidity. When a structure is subjected to earthquake forces, column loads and base moments get affected causing
increase in column load, on one side, and corresponding decrease, on the other. This causes a large eccentricity of loads with
respect to the C.G. of the raft. This behavior induces differential settlement causing additional moments in the raft. Hence, it
is necessary to investigate the effect of earthquake loading for the design of the raft. In the present study the effect of two
dynamic analysis methods namely seismic coefficient and response spectrum are compared for a building.
In case of response spectrum analysis, the signs of the forces are lost due to SRSS combination, however, in analysis of
raft, it is necessary to apply the forces with proper sign i.e. up and down. Pressure distribution under the raft for Response
spectrum method is rectangular with no signs attached to it unlike other cases. Seismic coefficient method mostly gives
results, which are conservative as compared with response spectrum method. Time History Analysis results can be assumed
as exact but involves very laborious calculations and are time consuming and are not suitable without powerful analysis
software packages, hence its use, for normal structures is not feasible. In this paper, emphasis is given on the pressure
distribution under the raft for the first two methods and a modified response spectrum analysis is suggested for the analysis
and design for the raft foundation. As the signs of forces in response spectrum method are lost, as an alternative the signs of
seismic coefficient method are attached to the response spectrum forces while applying on the raft model and the analysis is
performed.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a foundation under static conditions is to transfer vertical loads from the superstructure into ground. Under
seismic conditions however, the strength demand of the foundation becomes more complicated. The movement of the ground
during an earthquake becomes the source of dynamic loading. Suddenly the foundation must transmit seismic inertia forces in
the structure caused by the ground motion back into the ground. Thus horizontal base shear, overturning moment, and axial
force develop in the structure that must be resisted to effectively avert serious seismic damage.
A raft foundation is a large concrete slab, which transmits the loading from several columns in a building or the entire
building loads to the ground. A raft is often used when the soil is of poor quality, or the column loads are so large, that more
than 50% of the building-plan area is covered by footings. Rafts are also used beneath silo clusters, nuclear reactors, storage
tanks, chimneys and other structures where a single foundation element beneath all parts of the structure is required.
RCC rafts are complex structures having intricate reinforcement details and their interaction with soil, which is generally
with varying properties, makes the analysis very difficult. The analysis of RCC plated structures is a complex problem
because of heterogeneous nature of concrete, uncertain material laws, variation in reinforcement in different parts etc. apart
from these, in rafts the interaction with soil also becomes important.
Also with ease in availability of high power software, it is possible to perform nonlinear analysis of the raft structures for
economy and to access proper results for important structures. In such cases, it is necessary to perform analysis with all
possible load combination acting on the raft, where forces are combined with proper sign.
For the Seismic analysis of multistoried structure having raft foundation, various methods such as Seismic Coefficient
Analysis, Response Spectrum Analysis and Time-History Analysis can be used for evaluation of earthquake forces. All the
above stated methods have different approach for seismic analysis to get the structural deformations and member forces. In
case of a raft foundation for a structure when analyzed for seismic forces with different methods, forces having different
signs are induced depending upon the method of analysis used.
The Figure-1 a shows how the forces are induced in the structure basically foundation if seismic coefficient analysis is
performed. The force application in seismic coefficient method for a raft of typical multistoried building structure results in
compressive forces (on one side) and tensile forces (on other side) in the columns. These forces in term induce variation of
pressure distribution on the raft.
In response spectrum method mode shapes and frequencies are calculated by considering the structure as multi-degree
freedom system with lumped masses. The force application to the structure results in forces having no sign attached to them,
thus the nature of reactions in not exactly known for the analysis of structure. (Figure 1b)
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
Figure 1a Vertical force distribution Figure 1b Vertical force distribution
for Codal Coefficient method Response Spectrum method
In time history analysis from the time history graphs of the response, force amplitude with sign gives most exact results.
But the method is very tedious compared with the other two. Here the comparison of these methods is carried out and
emphasis is given to arrive at a more rational dynamics analysis procedure for design of rafts subjected to seismic forces.
In the present study, the seismic analysis of plane and space frames is performed using SAP2000, which is a integrated
finite element analysis and design program, for various structures including dynamic analysis. The forces in the columns at
the foundation level are determined for seismic loads applied using three different approaches viz. seismic coefficient
method, response spectra method and time history analysis. The effect of earthquake has been studied with respect to the
variation of axial forces and hence, in the pressure distribution diagram for the raft.
PROBLEM CONSIDERED
General
A ground plus four storey RC office building of plan dimensions 19 m x 10 m located in seismic zone III on medium soil
is considered. It is assumed that there is no parking floor for this building. Seismic analysis is performed using the codal
seismic coefficient method and Response Spectrum method as per in IS:1893-2002.
Plan of the building and sectional elevations of different RC frames are shown in Figures 2a, 2b and 2c. The sizes of the
beams and columns are given in Figure 2a.
A
C2 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 Column Beam
C1 300 x RB1, 300 x 600
5
500 FB1
Y C2 400 x RB2, 300 x 500
B C1 C3 C3 C3 C3 400 FB2
C1
C3 400 x PB1 300 x 400
5
500
X PB2 300 x 350
C C2 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 Slab thickness: 125
1 2 3 4 5 6
4 4 3 4 4
Figure 2a Plan of building (All dimensions in meters)
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
.
Roof RB1
3
4th FB1
3
3rd FB1
3
2nd FB1
3
1st FB1
3
GL PB1
1.5
C2 C1 C2
5 5
Figure 2b Elevation of frame A, B & C Figure 2c Elevation of transverse frame 1&6
Earthquake Weight (Mass) Calculations
Table-1 gives Weight calculations at each floor level for whole building. Figure 3 shows weights at each floor level.
Table-1 Calculation of Weights at various levels (kN)
Level Slab+ Parapet wall BK Wall LL Beams Columns Total load
Finish
Roof 784 267 555 - 220 69 1895
4th 784 - 1110 48 220 138 2300
3rd 784 - 1110 48 220 138 2300
2nd 784 - 1110 48 220 138 2300
1st 784 - 555* 48 220 138 1745
GL - - - - - - -
Total 3920 267 4440 192 1100 621 10540
The earthquake 242 kN
forces
distribution, 197 kN
storey wise, is
shown in
Figure-3a.
118 kN
Figure 3b and
Figure 3c shows 61 kN
earthquake
force applied on 16 kN
the
mathematical
model.
Figure 3.a Earthquake Force Distribution
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
b. Earthquake Forces in X direction c. Earthquake forces in Y direction
Figure 3 Loading diagram for showing codal coefficient earthquake forces
Analyses
Two widely used methods of dynamic analysis of structures viz. seismic coefficient method and Response spectrum
method are studied. For both these methods i.e. Seismic coefficient method and Response Spectrum method for earthquake
analysis, procedure stated in IS–1893 is followed. The analysis is performed for rigid and flexible ( in bending) rafts.
Rigid Raft
The analysis is performed and the column forces are transferred to the raft for further analysis. The maximum and
minimum pressures for one component of earthquake, is tabulated in Table-2 for transverse frame and Table-3 for
longitudinal frame. The mathematical model is shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 show the pressure distribution at bottom of raft in
transverse direction The pressure is evaluated assuming the raft as rigid.
Figure 4 Mathematical model (fixed at bottom)
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
.
The pressure s1 is evaluated as moment due to unbalance load divided by section modulus of the area [Link] about
center divided by section modulus ( 132 x 2 x 5 x 6 / (4x10x10) = 19.80 kN/sqm.). In case of response spectrum method, as
the force is action in one direction, there will be only bertical force. Hence the vertical force is used to calculate the uniform
pressure. ( 120+120 / (4x10) = 6 kN/sqm).
Table 2 – Pressure variation under raft for transverse frame
s1 s2 Remarks
(kN/sqm) (kN/sqm)
SCM +19.80 -19.80 Triangular Pressure
RSM ±6.00 ±6.00 Uniform rectangular pressure
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3
RAFT
RAFT
S1 S1
S2 S2
a. SCM Earthquake Forces b. RSM Earthquake Forces
Figure 5 Schematic Pressure Diagram below Raft in transverse direction
Similar results for the maximum and minimum values of pressure distribution at the corners of raft are obtained for
longitudinal direction earthquake and they are presented in Table 3 and Figure 6.
Table 3 – Pressure variation under raft for longitudinal frame
s1 s2 Remarks
(kN/sqm) (kN/sqm)
SCM +12.67 -12.67 Triangular Pressure
RSM ±5.00 ±5.00 Uniform rectangular pressure
Col 1 Col 6 Col 1 Col 6
RAFT
RAFT
S1 ±S1
S2 ±S2
a. SCM Earthquake Forces b. RSM Earthquake Forces
Figure 6 Schematic Pressure Diagram below Raft
Figure 7 shows the graphical presentation of column reactions due to codal co-efficient method and response spectrum
method in transverse and longitudinal direction.
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
Column Reaction
Column Reaction
200 200
100 100
0 0
-100 1 2 3 -100 1 2 3 4 5 6
-200 -200
Column location Column Location
EQY EQYRSM EQX EQXRSM
a. Transverse Frame b. Longitudinal frame
Figure-7 Plot showing column reactions
It can be seen that the center of gravity of the pressure changes when response spectrum results are used without any sigh.
This may lead to change in pressure distribution under the raft when combined with other load cases.
Modified Response Spectrum forces
As the signs of forces in response spectrum method are lost, as an alternative the signs of seismic coefficient method can
be attached to the response spectrum results and the analysis can be performed. To study this effect few models are analyzed
with the same and the variation in the pressure under raft can be observed from the graphs. The results are shown in Table- 4
and Figure 8.
Table 4 – Pressure variation under raft in transverse direction
s1 s2 Remarks
(kN/sqm) (kN/sqm)
SCM +19.80 -19.80 Triangular Pressure
RSM +17.90 -17.90 Uniform rectangular pressure
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3
RAFT
RAFT
S1 S1
S2 S2
a. SCM Earthquake Forces b. RSM Earthquake Forces
Figure 8 Schematic Pressure Diagram below Raft with modified Response spectrum forces
Similar results for the maximum and minimum values of pressure distribution at the corners of raft are obtained for
longitudinal direction earthquake and the results are shown in Table- 5 and Figure 9.
Table 5 – Pressure variation under raft in longitudinal direction
s1 s2 Remarks
(kN/sqm) (kN/sqm)
SCM 19.80 19.80 Triangular Pressure
RSM ±6.00 ±6.00 Uniform rectangular pressure
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
Col 1 Col 6 Col 1 Col 6
RAFT
RAFT
S1 S1
S2 S2
a. SCM Earthquake Forces b. RSM Earthquake Forces
Figure 9 Schematic Pressure Diagram below Raft with modified Response spectrum forces
Flexible Raft
The raft is modeled as plate elements supported by springs as per Winkler Hypothesis[2]. The raft foundation considered
here is main beams between the column as raft slab spanning between these beams. Modulus of subgrade reaction assumed as
10,000 kN/cum for the soft soils. The modulus of subgrade is assumed in such a way that the dynamic properties (i.e.
frequency of predominant mode) is same with as compared with the fixed base mathematical model. The mathematical model
is shown in figure 10. The pressure diagram below raft along the transverse frame and longitudinal frame is shown in Figure
11 and 12.
The analysis is performed with the seismic forces obtained using codal co-efficient method (EQX, EQY), Response
spectrum method (RSMEQX, RSMEQY) in transverse and longitudinal direction. The pressure diagram obtained with these
four cases is compared with statically applying column reactions on the raft at the location of the columns. These cases are
presented as PREQX, PRRSMEQX, PREQY and PRRSMEQY for codal co-efficient forces and Response spectrum forces in
transverse and longitudinal direction.
Figure 10 Mathematical model with raft modeled
1
Transactions, SMiRT
Transactions, 19,19,
SMiRT Toronto,
Toronto,August
August2007
2007 Paper
Paper # ????
# K08/3
.
40
Pressures
(kN/sqm)
20
0
-20 1 2 3 4 5 6
-40
Column Location
EQX PREQX RSMEQX PRRSMEQX MODRSM
Figure 11 Pressure distributions along transverse direction
40
Pressures
(kN/sqm)
20
0
-20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-40
Column Location
EQY PREQY RSMEQY PRRSMEQY MODRSM
Figure 12 Pressure distribution along longitudinal direction
It can be seen that if the response spectrum forces are used with the sign attached with the codal co-efficient results, the
pressure diagram represents proper distribution as expected with lateral forces.
CONCLUSIONS
It is important to note that the Response Spectrum results are always positive, and that the correspondence between different
values has been lost. It can be seen that the center of gravity of the pressure changes when response spectrum results are
used without any sigh. This may lead to change in pressure distribution under the raft when combined with other load cases.
This problem can be overcome by attaching the sign of the codal co-efficient results to response spectrum forces. This also
may help in performing nonlinear analysis in combination with gravity forces.
REFERENCES
1. IS 1893 (2002). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part I, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
2. Bowles J. E. (1997). Foundation analysis and design,. McGraw-Hill International Companies. Inc.
