1

Original scientific paper Received: February 2, 2016

Accepted: March 7, 2016
DOI: 10.1515/rmzmag-2016-0001

A comparative study of soil-structure interaction in the

case of frame structures with raft foundation
Primerjalna analiza interakcije konstrukcije in tal na primeru
skeletne konstrukcije temeljene na plošči
Balázs Móczár, Zsuzsanna Polgár, András Mahler*
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Muegyetem rkp. 3.,
HU-1111, Hungary
*[email protected]

Abstract Izvleček
Design and modelling of raft foundations and selecting Načrtovanje in modeliranje temeljenja na plošči kot
the value of coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction are tudi primerna selekcija koeficientov za vertikalne reak-
still actively discussed topics in geotechnical and struc- cije temeljev so zelo aktualne teme, ki so predmet sku-
tural engineering. In everyday practice, soil–structure pnega interesa geotehniških in gradbenih inženirjev.
interaction is mostly taken into account by using the V vsakodnevni praksi je problem interakcije konstruk-
theory of ‘beam on elastic foundation’, in which the soil cije in tal pogosto obravnavan kot problem ˝nosilec
is substituted by a certain set of coefficients of sub- (preklada) na elastičnem temelju˝, pri čemer so tla za-
grade reaction. In this study, finite element analysis of a menjana s skupino vertikalnih reakcij temeljev. V član-
building was performed using a geotechnical software ku je prikazana statična analiza skeletne konstrukcije
(Plaxis 3D), which is capable of modelling the subsoil z uporabo metode končnih elementov s pomočjo geo-
as a continuum, and a structural software (Axis VM), tehniškega programa Plaxis 3D, ki omogoča modeli-
which uses the concept of ‘beam on elastic foundation’. ranje temeljnih tal kot kontinuuma in tudi z uporabo
The evaluation of the results and recommendations for programa za statične izračune (Axis VM), v katerem je
everyday engineering practice are introduced in this uveljavljen koncept ˝nosilec (preklada) na elastičnem
paper. temelju˝. Prispevek podaja oceno rezultatov primerjal-
ne analize in zaključke oziroma uporabna priporočila
Key words: raft foundation, settlement, finite element za vsakodnevno inženirsko prakso.
analysis, subgrade reaction
Ključne besede: temeljenje na plošči, posedanje, me-
toda končnih elementov, vertikalne reakcije temeljev

© 2016 Balázs Móczár, published by De Gruyter Open.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
2

Introduction methods have been published lately [6–9].

A well-known drawback of the theory is that
Everyday use of finite element analysis in struc- there is no shear transmission between the
tural engineering creates the demand for eas- adjacent springs, thus subgrade reaction fol-
ily available and usable information from the lowing a certain distribution may be necessary.
vast knowledge of soil–structure interaction. A case study of a damaged raft foundation [10]
Expansion and refinement of this large amount had pointed out that simple elastic continuum
of knowledge are facilitated by model analyses calculation results are in much better agree-
with special geotechnical software products ment with the measured settlements than the
and the increasingly used monitoring in large calculated values using subgrade reactions.
projects. This study aims to capture the important ten-
The goal of this study is to make soil–structure dencies in the distribution of subgrade reaction
interaction more understandable through the by back-calculating its values from the results
parametric analysis of a given structure – a of three-dimensional geotechnical finite ele-
multistorey reinforced concrete frame with raft ment analyses (i.e., continuum calculations).
foundation – with geotechnical software that The results enable some recommendations for
can model the behaviour of soil more accura­ the better use of subgrade reaction calculations
tely. in everyday design.
Office buildings, parking garages and residen-
tial buildings are often constructed on raft
foundation. Accordingly, soil mass appears as Problem statement
a surface support in the model of the struc-
ture; thus, it can be considered a set of springs. The subject of this study was a symmetric
In practice, distribution corresponding to the eight-storey reinforced concrete frame struc-
modified Winkler method is the most common- ture on raft foundation lying on the ground sur-
ly used, whereby the coefficient of subgrade re- face with floor plan dimensions of 32 m x 32 m,
action equals the ratio of average bearing pres- as well as the soil mass underneath it (Fig-
sure and settlement in the characteristic point. ure 1).
Although this theory is very popular among Modelling was carried out with the finite ele-
structural engineers because it significant- ment software Plaxis 3D Foundation, which
ly simplifies the calculation of soil–structure is capable of handling soil as continuum with
interaction, the proper definition of the sub- nonlinear deformation properties, and the
grade reaction is often very complicated. Many structure can be modelled as an assembly of
recommendations are available in the interna- columns and slabs.
tional literature [1–5], and several enhanced Main parameters of the model:
―― Storey height: 3 m,

Figure 1: Geometry of the models: (a) geotechnical software and (b) structural software.

RMZ – M&G | 2016 | Vol. 63 | pp. 1–008 Móczár B., Polgár Z., Mahler A.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
 3

Table 1: Soil properties.

Soil Sandy gravel Sand Sandy silt Clay (stiff)
Unit weight, γunsat (kN/m3) 19 18 19 19
Effective unit weight,γ’ (kN/m3) 10 9 10 10
Angle of internal friction, φ (°) 37 31 22 15
Cohesion, c (kPa) 0 0 20 40
Oedometer modulus, Eoed (MPa) 35 18 11 9

―― Distance of columns: 8 m, Results

―― Cross section of columns: 40 cm x 40 cm,
―― Slab thickness: 25 cm, On the basis of the analyses using reasonable
―― Thickness of raft foundation: 40 cm – 60 cm combinations of the properties listed in Table 1
– 80 cm – 100 cm, and interpretation of the results, the following
―― Shear wall thickness: 0 cm or 25 cm, conclusions could be drawn. These are partly
―― Distributed load: intermediate slabs similar to those of Széchy and Varga [15] and
3.5 kN/m2, roof slab 4.0 kN/m2, Dulácska et al. [16]:
―― Element connections: slab–column connec- ―― Combined behavior of soil structure is main-
tions are modelled as rigid components. ly influenced by the deformation parameters
It should be emphasised that the geometry and of the soil rather than by its shear strength
dimensions of the structure were selected to be parameters (so inadequate selection of
constant (except for the raft foundation thick- shear strength parameters practically does
ness) and similar to those in real life, so they not affect stress and strain conditions of the
could represent constant structure stiffness, foundation. These parameters have strong
but their factual values have no importance in influence on the ultimate limit state, which is
the study. rarely an issue);
The analysis was performed assuming four dif- ―― Limit depth, independently from soil type,
ferent homogeneous soil types to examine the has no effect on differential settlements and
effects of different soil properties. The analysed stresses, but it does strongly influence the
soil types and their properties are summarised absolute value of the settlement;
in Table 1 [11]. ―― If the soil’s modulus of compressibility is
In order to investigate the effects of different lower, the relative settlement will be small-
parameters, a parametric study was carried out er because the raft distributes the excess
on two types of soil models: linear elastic–per- stresses induced by point loads;
fectly plastic (Mohr–Coulomb, MC) and nonlin- ―― More rigid raft foundation leads to smaller
ear isotropic hardening (Hardening Soil, HS) relative settlements due to point loads, and
material models [12, 13]. In the study, effects the distribution of vertical displacement ap-
of various soil properties, model depths (as the proaches the typical shape of rafts loaded by
lower boundary of stresses taken into account; solely distributed loads;
five different limit depth theories were ap- ―― In case of flexible rafts, vertical distribution
plied: Egorov and Malikova [14], German stan- of stresses is independent of soil type and its
dard: DIN1054, Earlier Hungarian standard: compressibility properties;
MSZ15004-1989, Széchy and Varga [15]), de- ―― By increasing the stiffness of the raft, stress-
grees of raft stiffness (40–60–80–100 cm thick- es in granular and cohesive soils become
ness) and presence of shear wall at the ground increasingly different. In cohesive soils,
floor were examined. Our focus was mainly higher negative, but smaller positive, stress-
directed towards the developing settlement of es evolve, so the bending moment diagram
the structure, bearing pressure, bending mo- shifts towards the negative bending mo-
ments in the raft and stresses in the slabs. ments while retaining its shape;

A comparative study of soil-structure interaction in the case of frame structures with raft foundation Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
4

Figure 2: Coefficients of subgrade reaction in the middle cross section of the raft (a) for sandy gravel and (b) for clay.

―― The thicker the raft, the higher will be the ―― Distribution of the coefficient of subgrade
stresses in the foundation; reaction is independent of soil type; it only
―― Raft thickness has negligible influence on influences the absolute value of the modulus
stresses in the slabs; (the softer the soil, the smaller will be the co-
―― At the ground floor, the enclosing shear wall efficient);
only influences the stress and strain distri- ―― Coefficient of subgrade reaction is not influ-
bution of the raft near the wall; enced by raft thickness for a given soil, ex-
―― Compared to the solely frame structure, the cept those of very flexible rafts;
effect of shear wall in the subgrade reaction ―― Coefficients determined with Plaxis software
is negligible. and the modified Winkler method (wherein
Distribution of coefficient of subgrade reaction the settlement was calculated based on the
calculated from the geotechnical finite element ‘classical’ method and with same limit depth)
software as the ratio of bearing pressure and show good agreement with each other in the
settlement in each point is shown in Figure 2 for inner half of the raft;
different degrees of raft thickness. Figure 2 also ―― Unlike the modified Winkler method, bear-
shows the Winkler and modified Winkler coef- ing pressure and coefficient of subgrade re-
ficients of subgrade reaction [17–19]. The rec- action only increase in a narrow range near
ommendation of the modified Winkler method the edge (only in the one-sixteenth of the
is to use 0.8x of the default value of subgrade total width), and even in this range, their val-
modulus in the inner section of the raft, while ues do not reach the values recommended by
near the edges (one-quarter of the total width), the modified Winkler method;
a linearly increasing value is proposed up to ―― The coefficient of subgrade reaction can be
1.6x of the default value. The default value was approximated with a constant, except in the
determined based on Kany’s method by taking above-mentioned narrow range near the
the ratio of average bearing pressure and set- edges;
tlement in the characteristic point. This theory ―― The ratio between coefficients of subgrade
is based on the determination of limit depth, reaction of the raft’s outer and inner sections
which marks the theoretical lower boundary is the following for different soils (the stiffer
of soil mass that is compressed due to loading. the soil, the less is the difference):
After considering several different limit depth ―― sandy gravel: 1.3–1.4
theories and based on practical experiences, a ―― sand: 1.3–1.4
depth of 15 m was selected for this problem, for ―― sandy silt: 1.4–1.6
which the following results were obtained. ―― clay: 1.5–1.7
Based on these, the following conclusions can
be drawn:

RMZ – M&G | 2016 | Vol. 63 | pp. 1–008 Móczár B., Polgár Z., Mahler A.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
 5

Table 2: Average coefficients of subgrade reaction (in kPa/m).

Soil type/method Sandy gravel Sand Sandy silt Clay (stiff)
Winkler 3097 1565 973 796
Plaxis 3160 1524 926 724
Difference +2.0% -2.4% -4.8% -9.0%

the raft as recommended by the modified

Winkler method;
―― Type 3: Type 2 was further modified to
have better correspondence with the mod-
ified Winkler method: in the inner section,
0.8 x C value was applied, but the outer zone
was divided into two further zones: in the
4-m-wide zone closer to the inner section
1.0 x C and, in the 3-m-wide zone at the edge,
1.4 x C value were applied.
The latter two values were selected in such
a way that the average value of the coefficient
remains the same. Numerical analysis with
distribution Types 2 and 3 showed that the
structural software can give peak stresses at
the edges and corners of the raft, contradict-
ing the actual behaviour. The reason is that the
Figure 3: Analysed distributions of subgrade reaction: (a) software does not take into account the effect
Type 1, (b) Type 2, (c) Type 3 and (d) Type 4. of stress distribution in these areas. Approxi-
mation can be improved by increasing the de-
Comparison fault value of the coefficient of subgrade reac-
tion: developers of the software recommend 2x
Another aim of this study was to analyse the ef- value at the edges and 4x value at the corners.
fect of different subgrade reaction distributions The results hereinafter were obtained by this
on the computed settlements and internal for­ improved approximation.
ces. In addition to the three types of approximated
Three different approximate subgrade reaction distributions, a fourth type was also considered,
distributions were examined, wherein the de- wherein the coefficient was calculated directly
fault value of the coefficient (C), as mentioned from the geotechnical numerical software. Due
previously, was defined as the ratio of average to the mesh density of the geotechnical model,
bearing pressure and settlement in the char- the coefficients of subgrade reaction were de-
acteristic point. It should be noted that loads termined using a 2 m x 2 m grid as the ratio of
were included in the model with their design bearing pressure and settlement at each point;
values in every calculation (for both stresses thus, the distribution of subgrade reaction was
and settlements) as our goal was to analyse and produced ‘artificially’. Accordingly, surface sup-
present the tendency of the results. ports were defined in the structural finite el-
In the analysis, the following distributions of ement software with the same grid, but with
the coefficient of subgrade reaction were con- half grid shift. Thus, a coefficient of subgrade
sidered (Figure 3): reaction corresponding to a 2 m x 2 m area was
―― Type 1: The default coefficient (C) is applied produced as the ratio of bearing pressure and
below the entire raft; settlement at the centre of that area. The aver-
―― Type 2: 0.8 x C value in the inner (16 m) and age of the coefficient values is compared with
1.6 x C value in the outer (7 m) sections of the values of the modified Winkler method in

A comparative study of soil-structure interaction in the case of frame structures with raft foundation Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
6

Figure 4: Settlement profile in the middle cross section of the raft, with raft thickness equaling (a) 0.40 m and (b) 1.00 m.

Table 2. As the Winkler coefficient is indepen- stress distributive property that decreases the
dent of raft thickness, the coefficient values role of subgrade in the settlement distribution.
obtained from the geotechnical software were Considering the bending moments, again Type
the average values calculated with different raft 4 distribution proved to be the best, correlating
thicknesses to allow comparison of data (for with the geotechnical finite element software
the calculation, the ‘Hardening Soil’ model was results for different types of both soils and
used). rafts (Figure 5). Type 1 distribution gives good
The two approaches give very similar results, approximation for both types of rafts in sandy
and it can be also noted that the stiffer the soil, gravel and for flexible raft in clayey soil, but for
the better is the agreement between the two. rigid raft in stiff soil, the deviation can be sig-
Settlement and moments in the middle cross nificant.
section of the raft were compared to examine Based on the analysis of the different distribu-
the influence of different distributions of sub- tions, the following conclusions can be drawn:
grade reaction and values of raft thickness. Two ―― Distribution and absolute value of settle-
values of raft thickness were selected: 40 cm ments and stresses determined by geotech-
to represent flexible behaviour and 100 cm to nical finite element software can be approx-
model a rigid foundation. imated with ‘beam on elastic foundation’
The study showed that for both flexible (Fig- theory if the resolution of subgrade is very
ure 4a) and rigid rafts (Figure 4b), Type 4 dis- detailed;
tribution (which was calculated directly from ―― In case of flexible raft and soft soil, distribu-
the geotechnical numerical results) shows the tion and values of bending moments calcu-
best agreement; however, its displacement val- lated with constant coefficient of subgrade
ues are tendentiously smaller. The explanation reaction throughout the entire surface show
behind this is the different modelling environ- good correlation with the geotechnical nu-
ments, as ‘beam on elastic foundation’ theory merical results (except at the negative peak
always gives smaller displacements than soil moment values), but compared to the other
mass modelled as a continuum. Type 3 distri- part of the raft, it gives smaller settlements
bution has the most similar shape to Plaxis dis- near the edges;
tribution, but its absolute values are consider- ―― In case of rigid raft and stiff soil, constant co-
ably different. Previous findings are confirmed efficient of subgrade reaction approximates
by Type 1 distribution (constant coefficient of poorly the results of geotechnical numerical
subgrade reaction below the entire raft) as its runs.
shape only shows significant difference in the ―― Considering the bending moments, the cen-
outer 2–3 m zone. tral section of the raft proved to be the most
In case of clay, similar tendencies can be ob- critical; differences in the results between
served, but differences in the distributions subgrades and software products can be sig-
are smaller because stiffer soils have a type of nificant, especially for rigid rafts.

RMZ – M&G | 2016 | Vol. 63 | pp. 1–008 Móczár B., Polgár Z., Mahler A.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
 7

Figure 5: Bending moment (mx) in the middle cross section of the raft, with thickness equaling (a) 0.40 m and (b) 1.00 m.

Conclusion strip (one-sixteenth of the width) at the edges.

Aside from this section, the coefficient of sub-
Based on the results, there is no significant dif- grade reaction can be considered a constant.
ference between distributions of settlements, The herein-outlined results indicate that dif-
but displacements calculated with the geo- ferent modelling environments can cause sig-
technical numerical software are tendentious- nificant differences in the analysis of the same
ly greater than the estimates of approximating problems. Therefore, the results of a paramet-
methods, especially near the edge of the raft. ric study in a given modelling environment
Larger differences occur in terms of stresses may lead to incorrect results in another envi-
and bending moments in the raft: peak mo- ronment. A result of a concrete problem can be
ments are considerably smaller under the col- a good basis for another problem, but conclu-
umns with geotechnical numerical software, so sions cannot be generalised. The goal of this
compared to this, the design based on ‘beam on study was not to decide which software gives
elastic foundation’ theory can lead to oversiz- the best result; it could be decided only with
ing. In the middle cross sections of the raft (es- monitoring of real structures. However, it can
pecially for rigid rafts), large differences were be concluded that the commonly used simpli-
observed between the different subgrades and fied design methods contain approximations
between the different software products; more- on the unsafe and uneconomical side; thus
over, the geotechnical finite element software their revision is necessary.
mostly gave higher stresses. It was also noted
that with structural software, the soil’s ability
for deformation has less influence on stresses References
than with the geotechnical software.
The analysis also confirmed that the distribu- [1] Terzaghi, K. (1955): Evaluation of coefficients of sub-
tion of coefficient of subgrade reaction is inde- grade reaction. Geotechnique, 5, 297–326.
pendent of soil type (and its properties); soil [2] Vesić, A. (1961): Beams on elastic subgrade and the
type only influences the absolute values of the Winkler’s hypothesis. Proceedings of 5th Internation-
coefficient. It was also noted that thickness of al Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
the raft (apart from very flexible rafts) for a giv- neering, Vol. 1, pp. 845–850.
en soil has no effect on the coefficient. [3] Timoshenko, S., Goodier, J.N. (1970): Theory of Elas-
Calculation with the geotechnical finite element ticity, 3rd edition. McGraw and Hill, New York.
software showed that unlike the assumption in [4] Bowles, J.E. (2001): Foundation Analysis and Design.
modified Winkler method (one-quarter of the McGraw-Hill, New Jersey.
width), the indirectly calculated coefficient [5] Larkela, A., Mengelt, M., Stapelfeldt, T. (2013): Deter-
of subgrade reaction only increases in a small mination of distribution of modulus of subgrade reac-

A comparative study of soil-structure interaction in the case of frame structures with raft foundation Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM
8

tion. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference [12] Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Swolfs, W.M. (ed.) (2007): PLAXIS
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris. 3D Foundation Version 2 Manual, PLAXIS BV, Delft,
[6] Mayne, P.W., Poulos, H.G. (1999): Approximate dis- Netherlands.
placement influence factors for elastic shallow foun- [13] Van Langen, H. (1991): Numerical Analysis of
dations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen- Soil-Structure Interaction. PhD dissertation, Delft Uni-
tal Engineering, ASCE, 125(6), 453–460. versity of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
[7] Abdullah, W.S. (2008): New elastoplastic method for [14] Egorov, K.E., Malikova, T.A. (1975): Settlement of
calculating the contact pressure distribution under foundation slabs on compressible base. Proceedings
rigid foundations. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, of 5th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechan-
2 (1). ics and Foundation Engineering, Bangalore, Vol. 1,
[8] Horvath, J.S., Colasanti, R.J. (2011): Practical sub- pp. 187–190.
grade model for improved soil-structure interaction [15] Széchy, K., Varga, L. (1971): Foundations – Volume 1
analysis: model development. International Journal of (in Hungarian). Műszaki Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
Geomechanics, ASCE, 11(1), 59–64. [16] Dulácska, E., Fekete, S., Varga, L. (1982): Interaction
[9] Jagodnik, V., Jelenic, G., Arbanas, Z. (2013): On the of Sub Soil and Building (in Hungarian). Akadémiai
application of a mixed finite-element approach to Kiadó, Budapest.
beam-soil interaction. Acta Geotechnica Slovenica, [17] Axis VM 12: User’s Manual Inter-CAD Kft [online].
10(2), 15–27. Available on: http://axisvm.hu/axisvm_download_
[10] Mayne, P.W. (2005): Unexpected but foreseeable mat training_materials.html
settlements on Piedmont residuum. International [18] Farkas, J. (1995): Foundation Engineering (in Hungar-
Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories, 1(1), 5–17. ian). Műszaki Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
[11] Móczár, B., Szendefy, J. (2013): Calculation of pre- [19] Lopes, F.R. (2000): Design of raft foundations on Win-
sumed bearing capacity of shallow foundations ac- kler springs, In: Hemsley, J.A. (ed.): Design applica-
cording to the principles of Eurocode 7 (in Hungar- tions of raft foundations, Thomas Telford Ltd., Lon-
ian). Vasbetonépítés, 2013(1), 20–26. don, U.K, pp. 127–154.

RMZ – M&G | 2016 | Vol. 63 | pp. 1–008 Móczár B., Polgár Z., Mahler A.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/9/17 9:48 AM