Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Research Article
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure
Interaction
Halkude S.A., Kalyanshetti M.G. and Barelikar S.M.
Accepted 10 May 2014, Available online 01 June 2014, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Abstract
In the conventional method of design of raft foundation flexibility of soil mass is ignored which is likely to affect the
performance of structure. In the proposed study an attempt is made to understand the effect of soil flexibility on the
performance of building frames resting on raft foundation. The purpose of this study is to describe and investigate
different approaches of considering soil flexibility in the soil structure interaction analysis (SSI) with regard to the
response in the superstructure. The present study is focused on SSI analysis of symmetrical space frame of 2 bay in both
x and y direction, 2 storey (2X2X2), 2 bays in both direction, 5 storey (2X2X5) and 2 bay in both direction, 8 storey
(2X2X8) resting on raft foundation with fixed base and flexible base. Three types of soil i.e. Hard, Medium Hard and Soft
Soil are used for the SSI study. Dynamic analysis is carried out using the Response Spectra of IS: 1893-2002. The soil
flexibility is incorporated in the analysis using Winkler approach (spring model) and elastic continuum approach (FEM
model). SAP-2000 is used for developing these models. The effect of SSI on various structural parameters i.e. natural
time period, base shear, roof displacement, beam moment and column moment are studied and discussed. The
comparison is made between the approaches of SSI modeling i.e. Winkler approach (spring model) and elastic
continuum approach (FEM model). The study reveals that the SSI significantly affects the response of the structure.
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) has proved to be the effective approach for consideration of elastic continuum
beneath foundation.
Keywords: Soil Structure Interaction, Seismic Response, Response Spectrum, Raft Footing, Finite Element Method,
Elastic Continuum, Winkler Method, SAP-2000.
1. Introduction
1
1424 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Halkude S.A. et al
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
Designation
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
Poissons Ratio()
0.3
0.4
0.4
Table II Geometric and Material Properties of Frame, Footing and Soil Mass
Component
Frames
Foundation
Soil
Description
Number of storeys
Number of bays in X direction
Number of bays in Y direction
Storey Height
Bay width in X direction
Bay width in Y direction
Size of Beam
Size of Column
Thickness of slab
Raft footing
Elastic Modulus of concrete
Poisson's ratio of concrete
Block of Soil Mass
Modulus Elasticity of soil
Poisson's ratio of Soil
Data
2,5,8
2
2
3.2m
5m
5m
0.3 m x 0.4 m
0.3 m x 0.45 m
0.125 m
14 m x 14 m - 1m depth
2.5 x 10 kN/m2
0.2
32m x 32m - 16m depth beneath footing
65000, 35000, 15000 kN/m2
0.3, 0.4
where, Ab= Area of the foundation considered; B and L= Half-width and half-length of a rectangular foundation,
respectively; Ibx, Iby, and Ibz = Moment of inertia of the foundation area with respect to longitudinal, lateral and vertical
axes, respectively.
effects by modeling structurefoundation-soil system by
Finite Element Method. Seismic response of buildings
considering SSI exhibit variations based on frequency
content of motion and stiffness of soil. Garg and Hora
(2012) analyzed the performance of frame-footing-soil
system by considering plane frame, infill frame,
homogenous soil and layered soil mass. They concluded
that shear force and bending moment in superstructure get
significantly altered due to differential settlement of soil
mass. S.A. Halkude and M.G. Kalyanshetti (2014) studied
the effect of SSI on the building frame resting on isolated
footing. The study is considered by two approaches i.e.
Winkler approach (Spring model) and Elastic continuum
approach (FEM model). They concluded that elastic
continuum approach (FEM model) is an effective
approach for consideration of elastic continuum beneath
foundation.
The objective of the present study is to assess the
effect of SSI on various dynamic properties of R.C. frame
such as Natural Time period, Base shear, Roof
Displacement, Beam moment, Column moment, etc. The
above study is carried out by modeling the soil structure
1425 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Halkude S.A. et al
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
E-35000
E-15000
984375
492187.5
210937.5
984375
1324167
492187.5
662083.3
210937.5
283750
51426259
25713129
11019913
53199578
3214936
26599789
1607468
11399910
688914.9
1426 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Halkude S.A. et al
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
4. Parametric Study
1.50
1.48
1.46
FEM
MODEL
1.44
1.42
1.40
SPRING
MODEL
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
1.28
1.2
FEM
MODEL
1.0
FIXED
SPRING
MODEL
0.6
E-35000
E-15000
2.10
FEM
MODEL
2.05
SPRING
MODEL
2.00
1.95
1.90
FIXED
0.8
E-65000
SUPPORT CONDITION
Frames
Base
Conditions
SSI Models
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
0.4
0.2
0.0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
1427 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
80
70
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Halkude S.A. et al
60
FEM
MODEL
50
40
SPRING
MODEL
30
20
10
0
FIXED
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
FEM FIXED
2.5
E-65000
FEM E-65000
NATURAL TME PERIOD (sec)
2
FEM E-35000
1.5
70
FEM E-15000
60
SPRING FIXED
0.5
SPRING E-65000
SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
SPRING E-15000
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION
40
20
10
0
30
25
FEM
MODEL
20
SPRING
MODEL
15
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000 E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
FEM FIXED
70
FEM E-65000
60
FEM E-35000
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (mm)
SPRING
MODEL
30
FEM
MODEL
50
50
FEM E-15000
40
30
SPRING FIXED
20
SPRING E-65000
10
SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION
SPRING E-15000
10
5
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
1428 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Halkude S.A. et al
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
shear is noticeable with higher values. There is about 3845% of increment in Base Shear from hard to soft Soil in
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) and 46-51%
increment in Winkler approach (Spring Model). Base
Shear in Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) is 5-6
times more than that in Winkler approach (Spring Model).
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) shows
considerable variation in Base Shear.
1800
1600
1400
FEM
MODEL
1200
BASE SHEAR (kN)
1000
SPRING
MODEL
800
600
400
200
0
140
FIXED
120
E-35000
E-15000
FEM
MODEL
100
BASE SHEAR (kN)
E-65000
SUPPORT CONDITION
80
SPRING
MODEL
60
40
FEM FIXED
1800
20
1600
FEM E-65000
1400
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
FIXED
FEM E-35000
1200
1000
FEM E-15000
800
SPRING FIXED
600
400
SPRING E-65000
200
600
SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION
500
SPRING E-15000
FEM
MODEL
400
300
SPRING
MODEL
200
100
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
1429 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
30
FEM
MODEL
25
20
Halkude S.A. et al
140
FEM FIXED
120
FEM E-65000
100
FEM E-35000
80
FEM E-15000
60
SPRING FIXED
40
SPRING E-65000
20
SPRING E-35000
SPRING
MODEL
15
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION
10
5
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
SPRING E-15000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
60
50
50
SPRING
MODEL
40
30
20
10
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
45
40
COLUMN MOMENT (kNm)
70
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
FEM
MODEL
35
30
25
SPRING
MODEL
20
15
10
5
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
120
120
FEM
MODEL
80
100
60
SPRING
MODEL
40
20
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
100
FEM
MODEL
80
SPRING
MODEL
60
40
20
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
1430 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)
Halkude S.A. et al
Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction
140
120
FEM
MODEL
100
80
SPRING
MODEL
60
40
20
0
FIXED
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION
FEM FIXED
140
FEM E-65000
120
COLUMN MOMENT (kNm)
FEM E-35000
100
FEM E-15000
80
60
SPRING FIXED
40
SPRING E-65000
20
SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION
SPRING E-15000
1431 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)