th

The 12 International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

A Parametric Study on Raft Foundation

G. S. Kame, S. K. Ukarande
MGM College of Engineering & Technology, Navi Mumbai, India

K. Borgaonkar, V. A. Sawant
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Keywords: raft, Winkler foundation, thick plate

ABSTRACT: The Finite element analysis adopted for raft is based on the classical theory of thick plates resting
on Winkler foundation that accounts for the transverse shear deformation of the plate. Four noded, isoparametric
rectangular elements with three degree of freedom per node are considered in the development of finite element
formulation. Independent bilinear shape functions are assumed for displacement and rotational degrees of
freedom. Effect of raft thickness, soil modulus and load pattern on the response is considered.

1 Introduction
A raft or mat foundation is a large concrete slab used to interface columns in several lines with the base soil. It
may occupy the entire foundation area or only a part of it. A raft foundation may be used where the base soil has
a low bearing capacity and/or the column loads are so large that more than 50 percent of the area is covered by
conventional spread footings.

The methods available for analysis of such rafts are, Rigid beam analysis (conventional method) and Non-rigid or
Elastic method.

Rigid beam analysis can be used when the settlements are small. This is the simplest approach. It assumes that
mat is infinitely rigid with negligible flexural deflection and the soil is a linear elastic material. It also assumes the
soil bearing pressure is uniform across the bottom of the footing if only concentric axial loads are present or it
varies linearly across the footing if eccentric or moment loads are present. Although this type of analysis is
appropriate for spread footing, it does not accurately model mat foundations. Mats are not truly rigid, so the
settlement beneath the columns will be greater than that beneath unloaded areas. These differential settlements
will cause variations in the soil bearing pressure and corresponding changes in the flexural stresses in the mat.

Non-rigid or Elastic method involves plates or beams on elastic foundations, plates or beams on elastic half
space (elastic continuum), Readymade closed form solutions by elastic theory and, Discrete element methods,
where the mat is divided into elements by grids. The Discrete element method includes, Finite Difference Method,
Finite Element Method (FEM), and Finite Grid Method (FGM). Finite element analysis is the most accurate way of
analyzing the raft in which raft can be considered as plate resting on elastic foundation. The soil below the raft is
treated as either Winkler foundation or elastic continuum. Noorzaei et al (1991) used beam element, plate
element and brick element to model space frame, raft and soil in the analysis. A detailed parametric study of the
effect of variation in raft thickness on space frame-raft soil system had presented.

In the present paper Finite element analysis of raft is presented by modelling raft as thick plate resting on Winkler
foundation wherein effect of raft thickness, soil modulus and load pattern on the response is considered.

2 Finite element formulation for raft

The finite element method transforms the problem of plates on elastic foundation into a computer-oriented
procedure of matrix structural analysis. The plate (raft) is idealized as a mesh of finite elements interconnected
only at the nodes (corners), and the soil may be modeled as a set of isolated springs (Winkler foundation).

The Finite element analysis adopted for raft is based on the classical theory of thick plates resting on Winkler
foundation (Figure 1) that accounts for the transverse shear deformation of the plate. The formulation is based on
the assumptions that deflections are small compared with the thickness of plate, and that a normal to the middle
surface of the undeformed plate remains straight, but not necessarily normal to the middle surface of deformed

3077
plate. The stresses normal to the middle surface are considered negligible.

Figure 1 Structural idealisation of raft and supporting soil

Figure 2 Rectangular plate element

Four noded, isoparametric rectangular elements with three degree of freedom per node (the transverse
displacement w, rotation about x-axis θx, and rotation about y-axis θy) are considered in the development of finite
element formulation. Independent bilinear shape functions are assumed for displacement and rotational degrees
of freedom.

The strain energy of an isotropic, linear elastic plate including transverse shear deformation effects can be
expressed as,

U=
1
2A∫ [ ] 2A
[ ]
H T [Db ][H ] dA + ∫ γ T [D s ][γ ] dA − ∫ w q( x, y ) dA
1
…(1)
A

⎧ ∂θ x ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎡ ⎤
∂x
⎪
⎪ ∂θ y ⎪
⎪
Et 3 ⎢1 ν 0 ⎥
[H ] = ⎨ − ⎬, [Db ] = ⎢ν 1 0 ⎥ …(2)
⎪ ∂y ⎪ 12(1 −ν 2 ) ⎢ 1 −ν ⎥
⎪ ∂θ x ∂θ y ⎪ ⎢0 0 ⎥
⎣ 2 ⎦
⎪ ∂y − ∂x ⎪
⎩ ⎭
⎧ ∂w ⎫
−θ y ⎪
⎪⎪ ∂y ⎪ Etκ ⎡1 0⎤
[γ ] = ⎨ ⎬, [D s ] =
2(1 + ν ) ⎢⎣0 1⎥⎦
…(3)
⎪ ∂w + θ x ⎪
⎪⎩ ∂x ⎪⎭
In the above equations, q is the intensity of load per unit area, E is the Young’s modulus, ν is the Poisson’s ratio,
κ is the shear correction factor, t is the plate thickness and A is the element area. Using independent shape
functions, the nodal variables w, θx, and θy can be written in matrix form as,

3078
 ⎧ w ⎫ ⎡ N1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0 N4 0 0⎤
⎪ ⎪ ⎢
⎨θ x ⎬ = ⎢ 0 N1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0 N4 0 ⎥⎥{d } = [N ]{d }
⎪θ ⎪ ⎢ 0 N 4 ⎥⎦
…(4)
⎩ y⎭ ⎣ 0 N1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0
with {d }T = [w1 θ x1 θ y1 w2 θ x 2 θ y 2 w3 θ x 3 θ y 3 w4 θ x 4 θ y 4 ]
[H ] = [Bb ] {d } and [γ ] = [Bs ] {d } in which,
⎡ ∂N i ⎤
⎢0 0 ⎥ ⎡ ∂N i ⎤
⎢ ∂x ⎥ 0 − Ni ⎥
∂N i ⎥ ⎢
[Bb ]i = ⎢0 [Bs ]i = ⎢ ∂y
…(5)
0 − and ⎥ i = 1, 4
⎢ ∂y ⎥ ⎢ ∂N i
⎢ 0 ⎥
∂N i ⎥
Ni
∂N i ⎣⎢ ∂x ⎦⎥
⎢0 − ⎥
⎣⎢ ∂y ∂x ⎦⎥
From which the equation of strain energy can be expressed in a simplified form as follows.
1 1
U = ∫ ∫ {d } [Bb ] [Db ][Bb ] {d } J dξdη
1 T T

2 −1 −1
…(6)
1 1 1 1
+ ∫ ∫ {d } [B s ] [D s ][B s ] {d } J dξdη − ∫ ∫ {d } [N w ] q J dξdη
1 T T T T

2 −1 −1 −1 −1

where [N w ] = [N 1 0 0 N2 0 0 N3 0 0 N4 0 0]
The above equation represents the strain energy due to bending and transverse shear deformation of plate and
potential energy due to applied external load. The total strain energy of the raft-foundation system can be
obtained by adding the strain energy Uf of the foundation. By assuming full contact between raft and soil-
subgrade, the strain energy of foundation with modulus of subgrade reaction ks can be written as,
1 1
U f = ∫ wT k s w dA = ∫ ∫ {d } [N w ] k s [N w ] {d } J dξdη
1 1 T T

2A 2 −1 −1
…(7)
The total strain energy Ut of the plate foundation system is given by addition of two.
Ut = U +U f …(8)
By equating first variation of total strain energy to zero, the force-deflection equation for plate-foundation element
can be expressed as,
[[k ] + [k ] + [k ]] {d } = {Q}
b s f …(9)
where
1 1 1 1
[k b ] = ∫ ∫ [Bb ]T [Db ][Bb ] J dξdη ; [k s ] = ∫ ∫ [Bs ]T [Ds ][Bs ] J dξdη
−1 −1 −1 −1
…(10)

[k ] = ∫ ∫ [N ]
1 1 1 1
k s [N w ] J dξdη ; {Q} = ∫ ∫ [N w ] q J dξdη
T T
f w
−1 −1 −1 −1

3 Validation
A computer program is developed in FORTRAN 90 based on above formulation. For validation of the program,
simply supported square plate with dimension a × a subjected to uniformly distributed load q is considered.
Central deflections obtained from the finite element analysis are compared with the analytical solutions available
for thin plates.

Central deflection wmax of the plate is converted in non-dimensional form wn, as follows
wmax Et 3
wn =
12(1 − μ 2 )qa 4
Non- dimensional Deflection for square plates with dimensions 7.62m ×7.62m and thickness ranging from

3079
0.1524m to 0.533m are reported in Table 1.

Table 1 Non-Dimensional Deflection

Plate thickness t (m) 0.1524 0.2286 0.3048 0.3810 0.4572 0.5334

Non-Dimensional Deflection wn 0.00445 0.00862 0.01294 0.01694 0.02055 0.02379

Analytical value of Non-Dimensional Deflection for thin square plate is 0.00406, and computed value of Non-
Dimensional Deflection for 0.1524m thick plate is found to be 0.00445, which is in close agreement with standard
solution. This provides necessary validation check for the developed computer program.

4 Parametric Study
In the present investigations it is aimed to study the effect of following parameters on the rectangular raft
foundation using finite element analysis.

1. Thickness of the raft (0.45m, 0.9m, 1.5m)

3
2. Modulus of subgrade reaction (40000, 100000, 200000, 400000)kN/m ,
3. Column loads (three load patterns LP-I, LP-II, LP-III as indicated in Figure 3)

For specified three load patterns, raft thickness and soil modulus are varied to study their effect on the response.
For load pattern I and II, raft with dimension 10m×10m are considered, where as 26m ×14m is employed in load
pattern III. Deflection and bending moments in the raft are devised to compare the response.

Figure 3 Load Patterns considered in the analysis

4.1 Load pattern I

A typical deflection pattern at different positions in the raft is presented in Figure 4a, and the deflection along
central line for different thickness are compared in Figure 4b (Soil Modulus 40000). As expected, central line is
deflected more as compare with second, but response to raft thickness is complex. With increase in the thickness
deflection curves are flatter and central deflections are increased at higher thickness for Soil Modulus 40000.
Maximum deflections for different thickness and soil modulus are compared in Table 2. Maximum deflections are
found to be decreasing with increase in raft thickness and soil modulus. Figure 5 presents typical moment
diagram at different position for 0.45m thickness and comparison of moment along centre line for all thickness.
Bending moment under the load is hogging moment. Effect of thickness on bending moment is negligible with
marginal increase positive moment at smaller thickness.

3080
 Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Deflection

Maximum Deflection(mm) for modulus

Raft
Thickness(m) 40000 100000 200000 400000
0.45 3.72 1.78 1.120 0.765
0.9 3.64 1.56 0.867 0.517
1.5 3.88 1.60 0.842 0.460

Figure 4 Deflected Shape (Es 40000, LP-I)

3081
 Figure 5 Moment diagram (Es40000, LP-I)

4.2 Load pattern II

Deflected shape and bending moment diagram along central line of raft for all thicknesses are compared in
Figure 6 and 7 for soil modulus 100000 kN/m3. Effect of Soil Modulus and thickness on maximum deflection is
compared in Table 3. Maximum deflections are observed to be decreasing with increase in soil modulus. Effect of
raft thickness is quite complex. At lower soil modulus, deflections are increasing with raft thickness and at higher
modulus reverse trend is observed. Similar comparisons for bending moment are reported in Table 4 and 5.
Positive bending moments are increasing with raft thickness and negative bending moments are reduced with raft
thickness. When effect of soil modulus is considered, it is found that positive bending moments are decreasing at
higher modulus, and negative bending moments are increasing with soil modulus.

Table 3 Effect of Soil Modulus and thickness on Deflection

Maximum Deflection in mm
Thickness Thickness Thickness
Soil Modulus 0.45m 0.9m 1.5m
40000 2.75 2.87 3.15
100000 1.15 1.19 1.28
200000 0.62 0.612 0.65
400000 0.383 0.318 0.333

3082
 Table 4 Effect of Thickness (LP-II)

Max. positive BM Max. negative BM

Thickness Second Quarter Centre Second Quarter Centre
0.45 75.9555 41.6505 63.269 -72.041 0 -71.439
0.9 92.0945 68.9105 85.623 -67.5455 0 -64.405
1.5 98.9725 81.8925 97.377 -65.9105 0 -62.008

Table 5 Effect of Soil Modulus (LP-II)

Max. negative BM Max. positive BM

Es Edge Second Quarter Centre Edge Second Quarter Centre
100000 -40.023 -74.932 0 -74.286 68.976 60.7645 27.7125 49.439
200000 -49.754 -84.134 0 -81.643 58.971 51.363 19.895 41.698
400000 -53.469 -87.599 -0.321 -83.846 50.428 43.531 14.2355 35.831

3083
4.3 Load pattern III
Similar variations in deflected shape and bending moment diagram for three thicknesses are compared in Figure
8 and 9 for soil modulus 100000 kN/m3. Effect of thickness on maximum deflection and bending moments are
compared in Table 7. Maximum deflections are observed to be decreasing with increase in raft thickness.
Maximum positive bending moments are increasing with raft thickness, whereas negative bending moments are
more or less constant for given loading combination.

Table 7 Comparison of maximum values for all thickness LP-III

Maximum
Thickness Deflection Positive BM Negative BM
(m) (mm) (kNm) (kNm)
0.45 13.00 179.675 -298.153
0.9 11.14 197.511 -294.255
1.5 10.11 219.049 -296.448

5 Conclusions
A parametric study on raft foundations is presented wherein effect of raft thickness, soil modulus and load pattern

3084
on the response is considered. At lower soil modulus, deflections are increasing with raft thickness and at higher
modulus trend is reverse. Positive bending moments are increasing with raft thickness and negative bending
moments are reduced with raft thickness. When effect of soil modulus is considered, it is found that positive
bending moments are decreasing at higher modulus, and negative bending moments are increasing with soil
modulus.

6 References
Noorzaei J., Viladkar M. N., Godbole p. N. 1991. Soil-structure interaction of space frame-raft-soil syatem: A parametric study.
Computers & Structures, 40(5), 1235-1247.
Zienkiewicz O. C. 1968. The Finite Element Method in Structural & Continuum Mechanics, McGraw Hill, London.

3085