Report

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 + D▼2 ▼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 δ K = q/δ Here , q = mean bearing pressure K = modulus of subgrade reaction δ = 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 = Poisson’s 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. • Vesic’s work extended Boit’s 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 + γ1DfNqSqrw + 0.5 γ2BN γS γrw’ 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 KN/m2/m ) Bottom Top node node 71.75 3.88 -17.78 20.44 -24.08 24.61 -26.73 27.57 -29.44 30.19 -31.66 32.35 -33.55 34.11 -35.19 35.52 -36.76 37.06 -37.32 41.57 -29.11 36.51 MZ (K= 95000 KN/m2/m ) MZ Bottom Top Bottom Top node node node node 58.22 7.1 -5.78 14.76 -17.38 21.05 -17.6 23.95 -25.01 25.34 -27.59 27.83 -27.49 28.27 -29.49 30.27 -30.06 30.8 -31.86 32.52 -32.19 32.87 -33.74 34.36 -34.01 34.56 -35.37 35.87 -35.59 35.92 -36.79 37.09 -37.09 37.4 -38.15 38.46 -37.62 41.54 -38.57 42 -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 KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) Bottom Top Bottom Top node node node node -71.34 34.43 -33.93 18.76 -15.57 20.89 -7.82 11.38 -22.85 23.55 -13.44 14.24 -24.69 24.53 -15.45 15.36 -24.51 24.76 -15.47 15.76 -24.68 24.43 -15.78 15.57 -23.99 23.64 -15.22 14.92 -23.17 22.83 -14.52 14.23 -22.52 22.3 -13.95 13.74 -22.14 22.26 -13.76 14.16 -22.33 28.4 -13.06 16.72 MZ (K= 95000 KN/m2/m ) MZ Bottom Top Bottom Top node node node node -20.21 12.95 -1.63 1.91 -6.1 8.85 -2.88 4.27 -10.63 11.57 -5.38 6.65 -12.79 12.74 -7.78 7.84 -12.92 13.22 -8.18 8.53 -13.3 13.12 -8.72 8.57 -12.81 12.52 -8.34 8.08 -12.16 11.88 -7.77 7.53 -11.62 11.41 -7.29 7.08 -11.51 11.99 -7.29 7.96 -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 Floor Level MZ (K= 45000 KN/m2/m ) KN/m2/m ) Bottom Top Bottom Top node node node node MZ (K= 95000 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 0 124.62 -61.32 133.36 -70.07 136.09 -73.02 142.35 -78.43 1 83.7 -76.61 90.08 -83.36 92.4 -85.72 97.32 -90.48 2 75.24 -76.9 82.02 -83.38 84.37 -85.63 89.07 -90.1 3 69.48 -74.61 75.82 -80.76 78 -82.87 82.35 -87.04 4 62.47 -71.04 68.52 -76.92 70.58 -78.91 74.65 -82.83 5 52.8 -65.42 58.61 -71.08 60.58 -72.99 64.43 -76.72 6 40.32 -57.49 45.93 -62.99 47.82 -64.83 51.5 -68.4 7 24.42 -46.36 29.89 -51.74 31.72 -53.54 35.27 -57.03 8 5.45 -33.09 10.79 -38.33 12.57 -40.04 16 -43.31 9 -18.65 5.33 -13.16 -2.17 -11.31 -4.73 -7.65 -9.76 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