th

The 12 International Conference of

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

Response of Rectangular Raft Foundations under Transient

Loading

J. J. Mandal
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur: 713209, India

S. Roychowdhury
Department of Civil Engineering, Jadavpur University, Jadavpur, Kolkata: 700 032, India

Keywords: raft foundation, elastic half-space, coupling, transient loading

ABSTRACT: In the present paper, response analysis of rectangular raft foundations under transient loading
(treated as a free rectangular plate on elastic half-space) are carried out by using a coupled finite element –
boundary element (FE-BE) approach. The combined stiffness matrix of the plate-half-space is determined by
coupling the stiffness matrix of the plate and the half-space matrix obtained from the finite element and boundary
element methods respectively. The half-space response is based on the solution given by Mindlin (1936) for a
point load in half-space, which allows taking into account the effect of embedment of the plate. Consistent mass
matrix of the plate is determined by using standard finite element method. The governing differential equation for
the raft-soil system subjected to transient loading is solved by using Newmark integration method. Parametric
study on response is carried out. The formulation and the computer programme can be used for response
analysis for rafts of any shape and size with slight modification.

1 Introduction
Raft, treated as plates on elastic foundations, has wide applications in the field of geotechnical engineering.
Dynamic response of raft foundations is mainly restricted to the response analysis of different types of plates on
elastic foundations, with different boundary conditions. Few investigations have been undertaken for dynamic
response analysis of free plates on elastic foundation, which is generally used for raft foundations. In most of the
analyses, the foundation medium is in the form of Winkler or a two-parameter soil. However, parametric study on
the dynamic response is limited. Regarding the dynamic interaction analysis of flexible foundations, pioneering
work has been done by Savidis and Richter (1979), Iguchi and Luco (1981) and Whittaker and Christiano (1982).
Different numerical techniques (FD, FEM, and BEM) are used for the dynamic response analysis of plates on
elastic foundation having different boundary conditions. Existing literature shows a limited study on the response
analysis of raft foundations under transient and earthquake type loading. Providakis, C. P. (1997) carried out
transient boundary element analysis of elasto-plastic plates on elastic foundation. In the present paper, response
analysis of rectangular raft foundations under various types of transient loading is carried out using a FEM-BEM
coupling technique.

2 Mathematical formulation
The half-space response is based on the solution given by (Mindlin 1936) for a point load in half space, which
allows taking into account the effect of embedment of the plate. The plate and the half-space are two separate
models in unilateral and frictionless contact at the interface. Plate-half-space interface is discretised into two
dimensional isoparametric quadrilateral quadratic elements and the plate is discretised into eight nodded
isoparametric plate bending finite elements [Fig. 1(a) and (b)] based on Mindlin’s plate bending theory, which
allows for transverse shear deformation. The stiffness matrix obtained from the boundary element method (by
inverting the flexibility matrix) is coupled with the plate stiffness matrix obtained from the finite element method
after transformation to get the stiffness matrix of the plate-half-space system (Mandal and Ghosh 1998).

2.1 Response analysis under dynamic loading

Mindlin’s classical solution cannot be used to study the dynamic problem in BE analyses, since it does not have
the inertia term associated with the dynamics of the half-space. In the present study the dynamic analysis of the

524
raft-soil system is conducted within the formwork of stiffness formation and treated as a structural dynamics
problem rather than a wave propagation problem.

The equation of motion of the plate (raft) can be written as

[M ]{u&&}+[C ]{u&}+[K ps ]{u}={P(t )} (1)

Where [M], [C], [Kps] are generalised characteristic matrices for mass, damping and stiffness and {u}, {u) and {ü}
are generalised displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors of the coupled system respectively. {P(t)} is the
external nodal force vector. The formation of [Kps] is described in the previous section.

2.2 Mass and damping matrices

The [M] and [C] matrices can be formed as by assembling the element mass and damping matrices. The element
mass and damping matrix for a finite element are defined as

[m]e = ∫ [N T ] [ρ ] [N ]dv
ve

[c]e = ∫ κ d [N T ] [N ] dv
(2)

ve

Where for plate bending [ ρ] is a matrix, given by:

⎡ρ 0 ⎤ 0
[ρ ] = ⎢0
⎢ ρ hP / 12 2
0 ⎥
⎥ (3)
⎢⎣ 0 0 ρ hP 2 / 12⎥⎦
Where, ρ is the mass density of the material, hP is the thickness of the plate and κd is the material damping
parameter to analogous to viscosity, and the volume integration is carried out over the volume Ve.
In local co-ordinate system the above expression can be written as

[ ] [ρ ] [N ]
+1 +1
[m]e = hP ∫ ∫ N T J (ξ1 , ξ 2 ) d ξ1ξ 2
−1 −1
(4)
+1 +1
[c]e = hP ∫ ∫ κ d N [ ] [N ]
T
J (ξ1 , ξ 2 ) d ξ1ξ 2
−1 −1

A mass matrix thus obtained from the equation is called a consistent element mass matrix. It is called “consistent”
because [N] represent the same shape functions as are used to generate the element stiffness matrix. For the
present investigation the rotary inertia is taken into consideration.

2.3 Damping
Damping in structures is not viscous; rather, it is mainly due to mechanisms such as hysteresis in the material
and slip in connections. In practice, it is difficult to determine the element damping parameters for general finite
element assemblages, in particular because the damping properties are frequency dependent. For this reason,
the matrix [C] is in general not assembled from element damping matrix, but is constructed using mass and
stiffness matrix of the complete element assemblage together with the experimental results. In the present
formulation, a popular spectral damping scheme, called Rayleigh or proportional damping has been adopted. The
damping matrix [C] is formed as a linear combination of the stiffness and mass matrices; i.e.,

[C ] = a ′ [K ] + b′ [M ] (5)

Where a' and b' are called the proportional damping constants. The relationship between a′ and b' and the
fraction of critical dampingξ ′ at frequency ω is given by the following equation.
’

1⎛ b′ ⎞
ξ′ = ⎜ a ′ω + ⎟ (6)
2⎝ ω⎠

525
Damping constants a' and b' are determined by choosing the fractions of critical damping (ξ1′ andξ’2′) at two
different frequencies (ω1 and ω2) and solving simultaneous equation for a' and b'. Thus,

a ′ = 2( ξ 2 ' ω 2 - ξ 1 ' ω 1 )/( ω 2 2 - ω 12 )

(7)
b′ = 2ω1ω 2 ( ξ 1 ' ω 2 - ξ 2 ' ω1 )/( ω 2 - ω1 )
2 2

Usually, ω1 and ω2 are chosen to bind the design spectrum. Thus ω1 is taken, as the lowest natural frequency of
the structure, and ω2 is the maximum frequency of interest, in the loading or response. In the present study, the
fraction of critical damping for both the frequencies (ω1 and ω2) are chosen same; i.e.ξ1′ = ξ2′ = ξ ′. Thus the Eq.
(3.66) may be expressed as

a ′ = 2ξ ′/ (ω1 + ω 2 )
(8)
b ′ = 2ξ ′ ω1 ω 2 / (ω1 + ω 2 )

3 Time –history analysis

The dynamic equilibrium equation (1) is derived from the consideration of statics at time t; i.e., the equation may
be written as:

Fi (t ) + FD (t ) + FE (t ) = P (t ) (10)

[ ]{ }
Where, Fi (t) are the inertia forces, Fi (t) = M {ü}, FD (t) are the damping forces, FD (t) = C u& , FE (t) are the
inertia forces, FE (t) = Kps {u}, all are time dependent. Therefore, in dynamic analysis, in principle, static
equilibrium at time t, which includes acceleration dependent inertia and velocity dependent damping forces are
considered.

Mathematically, (1) represents a system of linear differential equations of second order and, in principle, the
solution to the equation can be obtained by standard procedures for the solution of differential equations with
constant coefficients. In the present investigation, the “Direct integration Method” is used to solve the dynamic
equilibrium equation.

4 Transient response analysis

The dynamic response of rectangular raft has been investigated subjected to different types of loading [step,
rectangular and sinusoidal pulse]. In the analysis, the total period T is discretised into NT constant time steps Δ t,
i.e. T = NT Δ t. Newmark direct integration scheme is employed to solve the dynamic equilibrium equation as
discussed in previous section. The mass density of the raft material is taken as 2.5 kN-s2 / m4 throughout.

4.1 Response of rectangular raft foundations

A square raft of size (6.0 × 6.0) m, 0.3m thick, having EP and μP values 0.25 × 108 kN/m2 and 0.2 respectively,
resting on a soil with modulus ES = 25000 kN/m2 and Poisson’s ratio (μS) =0.3 is considered for analysis.

4.1.1 Choice of Time step Δt

It is very important for dynamic analysis to select a proper time step. Since the method is numerically stable for
any Δ t, time step selection is based on accuracy considerations. To select a time step that provides accurate
results, the frequency of interest in the loading or response (ωu) is identified. In the present study, the
fundamental frequency is used as a guideline. With second order accurate integration method, a minimum of 20
time steps per period of ωu provide very good accuracy for mode that participate dynamically in the response;
that is, Δ t < (2π / ωu) / 20 = 0.3 ωu [Cook et al. (1989)]. With this as basis, convergence study is carried out. A
sinusoidal impulse of time period 0.105 s is applied. The response is obtained for different time steps and it is
observed that a time step of 0.0015 s yield accurate results, [vide - Fig. 2] for the range of parameters under
consideration. The discretisation of the raft is based on the convergence study for static analysis. Time step Δ t =
0.0015 s has been adopted for all the results reported in this section.

4.1.2 Convergence of solution

By introducing heavy damping (ξ = 50%), the transient response of the raft is obtained for a central step load of
100 kN. The central static deflection of the raft under 100 kN load obtained from the static analysis is 0.935mm,
whereas, the converged steady state response from the transient analysis is 0.925mm [vide - Fig. 3]. This reveals
very good convergence characteristics of the solution procedure.

526
5 Numerical results
Response of the square raft foundation under a central uniform, rectangular and sinusoidal pulse loads is
obtained. The central response for the uniform step function load Po = 100 kN are shown in Fig. 4 for different
damping. Fig. 5 shows the central response of the raft for different soil modulus of practical range with 10%
damping. Fig 6 and Fig. 7 present the central response of the raft, under a rectangular central pulse load of 100
2
kN acting for a time of 0.1 s, for different damping (ES = 25000 kN/m ) and for different soil modulus values (10%
damping) respectively. It is observed that the larger the value of ES (soil modulus), the lesser the amplitude and
higher the frequency of response.

The response of the square raft subjected to a sinusoidal pulse loading (Po =100 kN), is obtained and the results
2
are reported graphically in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 for different damping (ES = 25000 kN/m ) and for different soil
modulus values (10% damping) respectively. The results reveal that though the amplitude reduction is
comparatively less but the frequency of response increases with increase in the soil modulus values.

From the results obtained, it is noted that the increase in damping of the system reduces the amplitude of
response but its effect on frequency of response is not significant.

5.1 Effect of raft thickness on response

Responses of the raft are obtained for different thickness with 10 % damping by a central step and sinusoidal
pulse loading of same magnitude (100 kN) and presented in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11respectively. It is observed that
increase in the thickness of the raft reduces the amplitude as well as the frequency of response considerably.

5.2 Effect of the depth of embedment on response

The central response of the square raft under the step loading of 100 kN is shown in Fig. 12 for different depth to
width ratio. It is observed that the increase in the depth of embedment yields response of lesser amplitude and
higher frequency.

5.3 Effect of shape (aspect ratio) of rectangular raft foundation on response

The effect of shape (aspect ratio) on the response of rectangular rafts is studied. A comparative assessment is
made by obtaining response of rectangular rafts, subjected to a step load of 100 kN, having same area and
thickness as that of a square raft. Other parametric values of the rafts and the soil are identical. The results are
presented in Fig. 13. It is noted that the amplitude of response is lowest for the square raft (aspect ratio = 1.0),
the frequency of response is not significantly affected by the aspect ratio.

527
 2b

0.002
2a
hP
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, E P = 0.25x10 8 kN/m 2 , μ P = 0.2
ES = 0.25x108 kN/m 2, μS = 0.3, Damping = 50%

WC(m)
Rectangular

0.001
Plate (EP,μP)
4
3 5 P (kN) Central static deflection = 0.000935
Converged value from transient analysis = 0.000925
2 6
1 7 PO
8
Po = 100kN t (S)

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Time(s)
Fig. 3 Convergence to steady state (static) response
by introducing heavy damping in the step loading
(100kN) of square raft foundation
Fig.1 (a) Rectangular Plate on elastic Continuum –

0.002
discretisation of soil foundation system in plate finite 8 2,
Raft size: (6.0x6.0)m, EP=0.25x10 kN/m
element and soil boundary elements 2
µP=0.2, E S=25000kN/m , µS=0.3
21(3)

20(2) 24(4) WC (x103 mm)

(7)
0.001
19(1) 35(5)

26(8) P (kN)
34(6)
No Damping Po
t (s)
33(7) 5% Damping
10% Damping P o = 100 kN
20% Damping
0.000

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Fig. 1(b) Global and local node numbering of a Time(s)
typical element (7)
Fig.4 Effect of damping on central response
of a square raft under step load
0.001

0.004

Raft Size: (6.0 x 6.0) m, hP = 0.3m, μP = 0.3

P (kN) EP = 0.25x108 kN/m2, μS = 0.2, 10% Damping
ES = 0.10x105kN/m2
ES = 0.15x105 kN/m2
ES = 0.20x105 kN/m2
t (S) ES = 0.25x105 kN/m2
WC (x103 mm)

WC (x103 mm)

P O = 100 kN
Time Step = 0. 005 s
ES = 0.30x105 kN/m2
Time Step = 0. 003 s P = Po sinωt
0.002

Time Step = 0. 002 s

0

Time Step = 0. 001 s

Time Step = 0. 0005 s

P (kN)
Raft Size = (6.0 x 6.0)m,
E P = 0.25x108 kN/m2 , μP =0.2, Po
E S = 0.25x105 kN/m2 , μS =0.3
0.000

Damping = 10%
Po = 100 kN
-0.001

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 Time(s)
Time (seconds) Fig. 5 Effect of soil modulus (ES) on central response
Fig. 2 Convergence study for selection of time step of a square raft foundation under step load
for transient analysis of square raft foundation

528
 0.002 0.004
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, EP = 0.25x10 8 kN/m 2
P (kN)
μP = 0.2, μS = 0.3, 10% Damping
PO = 100 kN ES=10000 kN/m2
0.001 Po
ES=15000 kN/m2

t (s) 0.002 ES=20000 kN/m2

WC(x103 mm)
WC (x10 3 mm)

0.1
ES=25000 kN/m2
0 No D amping
5% Damping ES=30000 kN/m2
10% Damping
20% Damping 0.000
P(kN)
-0.001
PO = 100 kN
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, P = P osinωt
E P = 0.25x108 kN/m 2 , μP = 0.2
E S = 0.25x108 kN/m 2 , μS = 0.3 t (s)
-0.002 -0.002 0.105

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time(s) Time(s)
Fig. 6 Effect of damping on central response of a
square raft under rectangular pulse load Fig. 9 Effect of soil modulus on central response of a
square raft under sinusodial pulse load

0.003
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, EP = 0.25x10 8 kN/m 2
0.004 P (kN)
8
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, EP = 0.25x10 kN/m 2
μP = 0.2, ES = 0.25x10 5 kN/m 2, μS = 0.3
μP = 0.2, μS = 0.3
P O = 100 kN
hP=0.15m
10% damping
hP=0.30m
t (s) 0.002
WC(x103 mm)
hP=0.50m
0.002 0.1
WC(x103 mm)

hP=0.75m

0.000 0.001
ES=10000 kN/m2 P (kN)
2
ES=15000 kN/m
2
ES=20000 kN/m
PO
ES=25000 kN/m2
ES=30000 kN/m2 P o = 100kN t (S)
-0.002 0.000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time(s) Time(s)
Fig. 7 Effect of soil modulus on central response Fig. 10 Effect of thickness on central response of a
a square raft under rectangular pulse load square raft under step load

0.002 0.004
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m , EP = 0.25x10 8 kN/m 2 hP=0.15m
P(kN)
μP = 0.2, ES = 0.25x10 5 kN/m 2, μS = 0.3 PO = 100 kN hP=0.30m
P = P osinωt hP=0.50m

P (kN) t (s) hP=0.75m

P O = 100 kN 0.002
WC(x103 mm)

0.105
WC(x103 mm)

P = Po sinωt

0 t (S)
0.105

-0.000
No Damping
5% Damping
10% Damping Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, EP = 0.25x108 kN/m 2
20% Damping μP = 0.2, ES = 0.25x10 5 kN/m 2, μS = 0.3
-0.002 -0.002
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time(s) Time(s)
Fig. 8 Effect of damping on central response of a Fig. 11 Effect of thickness on central response of a
square raft under sinusodial pulse load square raft under a sinusodial pulse load

529
 0.002
0.002 d/2arr= 0.00 Aspect ratio=1.0
P (kN)
Aspect ratio=2.0
d/2arr= 0.25
PO Aspect ratio=3.0
d/2arr= 0.50 Aspect ratio=4.0
0.0015
0.0015 d/2arr= 0.75
Po = 100kN t (S) Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, E P = 0.25x10 8 kN/m 2

WC(x103 mm)
d/2arr= 1.00
μP = 0.2, ES = 0.25x105 kN/m 2 , μS = 0.3
WC(x10 3 mm)

8 2
Raft Size: (6.0x6.0)m, EP = 0.25x10 kN/m
10% Damping
μP = 0.2, ES = 0.25x10 5 kN/m 2, μS = 0.3 0.001
0.001 10% Damping

P (kN)

0.0005 PO
0.0005

Po = 100kN t (S)
0
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Time(s)
Time(s) Fig. 13 Effect of shape on central response of a
rectangular raft under a step load
Fig. 12 Effect of depth of embedment on central response
of a square raft under a step load

6 Conclusion
• Response analysis of rectangular raft foundation under different types of transient loading is carried out,
using the developed computer programme, written based on the formulation presented. The main
features of the work carried out and the results obtained can be summarised as follows:
• The mesh divisions of the rafts and the soil media are same, which are obtained from the convergence
study. Converged time step is determined for transient analysis using fundamental frequency, which
depends on the particular raft – soil system.
• Applying heavy damping to the system (50%), convergence of the algorithm is tested. The results show
very good convergence.
• The results obtained can help the designer to anticipate the effect of different parameters on the
response of rectangular raft foundations subjected to different types of transient loading.
• With slight modification in the formulation and upgrading the computer code, response of rafts of other
shapes under different types of dynamic loading can be obtained.

7 References
Lguchi, M. & Luco, J. E. 1981. Dynamic response of flexible rectangular foundation on an elastic half space. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics., 9, 239-249.

Krenk, S. & Schimdt, H. 1981. Vibration of elastic circular plate on an elastic half-space- a direct approach. Journal of Applied
Mechanics., 81, 161-168.

Mandal, J. J. and Ghosh, D. P.1998. Analysis of circular plate on elastic half-space – A coupled FEBE approach. Indian
Geotechnical Journal., 28(4), 339-356.

Mindlin, R. D. 1936. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid. Physics, 227-235.

Savidis, S. A. & Richter, T. 1979. Dynamic response of elastic plates on the surface of the half-space. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical methods in Geomechanics., 3, 245-254.

Whittaker, W. L. & Christiano, P. 1982. Dynamic response of plate on elastic half-space. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division, ASCE, 108, 133-154.

Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S. & Plesha, M. E. Concepts and applications of finite element method, 3rd edition, John Willey and
Sons, New York, 1989.

Providakis, C. P. 1997. Transient boundary element analysis of elasto-plastic plates on elastic foundation. Soil dynamics &
Earthquake Engineering, 16, 21-27.

530