International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics

Volume 119 No. 18 2018, 2649-2661

ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)
url: http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/
Special Issue
http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/

Effect of Modulus of sub grade reactions on the static behavior of raft

foundation resting on sand
1
N.V.Manjunath,2 B.Soundara ,3 M.Ranjitham

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering., Bannari Amman Institute of technology
Sathyamangalam, Erode, Tamilnadu,India.

2
Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering., Bannari Amman Institute of technology
Sathyamangalam, Erode,Tamilnadu, India.

3
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering., Bannari Amman Institute of technology
Sathyamangalam, Erode, Tamilnadu, India.

1 2
nvmanjunath90@gmail.com, soundara@bitsathy.ac.in ,3 ranjitham@bitsathy.ac.in

ABSTRACT

Infinite rigidity is assumed during the design of raft foundation using rigid method of design. The present
investigation is emphasized on a numerical study on the effect of M odulus of sub grade reactions on the structural behavior
of raft foundation resting on sand. M odulus of sub grade reaction is an important parameter in the design of Raft foundation
by considering soil structure interaction. In this paper, three methods are analyzed in calculating the sub grade modulus from
IS code 2950:1981 (2 methods) and Bowles recommendation. A square raft of size 20 m x 20 m and thickness of 0.8 m
resting on sand is considered. The M odulus of sub grade reactions are calculated with different Standard penetration Number
(SPT-N) values in the interval of 5 up to 100. The raft was analyzed using SAFE (2014) software by varying the values of
modulus of sub grade reaction. A comparative study was made with different subgrade modulus from three different methods
to study the structural behavior of the raft. From the study , it is observed that the M odulus of sub grade reaction is influenced
by various soil parameters such as modulus of elasticity, young’s M odulus, Poisson ratio, etc. and the variation in its value
has more effect on the structural behavior of raft.

KEYWORDS: M odulus of sub grade reaction, SPT –N, Raft, Sand, SAFE

1. INTRODUCTION

Soil is inherently a particu late matter wh ich will, behave neither as solid nor as liqu id. A mat foundation
is a large concrete slab used to interface one column, or mo re than one column in several lines with the base as

2649
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

soil. The raft foundation is comp letely resting on the soil and its behavior is influenced by the property of the soil
on which it is resting. Infinite rigid ity is assumed during the design of raft foundation which is contra dictory to
the behavior of the raft foundation on soft soils. This could be overco me by incorporating Modulus of sub grade
reaction which is the conceptual relationship between deflection and soil pressure. The soil in which the raft is
resting is modeled as vertical springs with modulus of sub grade reaction (ks ) representing long term settlement
properties of the soil. The values of modulus of sub grade reaction are identified normally by conducting plate
load test on the site which is un economical and change in ground stress while getting access to the test position
also leads to change of the soil properties.

For the same soil data, the values of Modulus of sub grade reactions determined by methods suggested
in the different text books and codes will be d ifferent [1]. For same soil the values of sub grade reactions vary
while referring different methods [2].Mat foundations are used soil in wh ich the raft resting is having low
bearing capacity and heavy colu mn loads [3].The Modulus of sub grade reaction (k s ) decreases with the increase
in the side dimension of the footing (B) and there is no abrupt change in Modulus of sub grade reaction after
breadth of above 3 meter [4]. In case of static analysis on steady loading and response conditions, model should
be discretized into elements of size 40 mm in order to obtain satisfied results, consuming less computer
resources and computing time. For bucking analysis , the finite element model wh ich is meshed between 30 and
50 mm size can give us optimal co mbination of accuracy and efficiency [5]. The Win kler model does not
account for the spreading of load in the soil layers . The Pasternak model does take spreading into account
however it is difficult to determine the second parameters, which is the shear modulus of the shear layer (Gp ).
The Gradient model results were physically difficult to interpret, thus ma king the results unusable [6]. The
flexu ral rigid ity (thic kness) of the raft foundation has a significant influence on the pressure distribution of the
supporting soil, especially at sections under colu mns, and for the raft [7].The modulus of sub grade react ion and
its probabilistic characteristics can be determined directly by field test. As an alternative to the determination of
the modulus of sub grade reaction, regular soil properties may be used [8]. The direct method to estimate the
modulus of sub grade reaction is plate load test that it is done with 30-100 cm d iameter circular plate or
equivalent rectangular plate [9].Because of the limitat ion of available data and the uncertainty of soil condition;
it was also proposed to use the empirical equations. The following empirical equations were suggested to
estimate ks value both in clay and sand: Clay : ks = 40 – 50 s u (t/m3 ) Sand : ks = 70 – 100 NSP T (t/ m3 ) where s u is
an undrained shear strength (t/m2 ) and NSP T is the value obtained from Standard Penetration Test[10]. The
footing size and footing depth greatly influence the modulus of sub grade reaction of mat foundations and also it
is 20 times mo re for concrete footing than rigid steel plate [11].The response of the structure is accurately
estimated when sub grade modulus is considered for both static and dynamic analysis [12].

It is concluded that from the available literature study that the modulus of reaction playing vital role in
the behavior of raft foundation and many methods suggesting different values. A co mparat ive study is helpful to
overall evaluation of accuracy of the methods and compared data can act as evaluation tool for field Engineers.

2. METHODOLOGY
The present study is emphasized on an indirect approach to interpret the values of modulus of sub grade
reactions for the raft foundation resting on the sand fro m Indian standard code and Bowles reco mmendations.

2650
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

The most common test done in many construction projects is the Standard penetration test to find the soil
parameters. In this approach Modulus of s ub grade reaction values are correlated with the standard penetration
test (SPT) values N for raft foundation resting on sandy soil. The Fin ite element analysis was carried out to
investigate the structural behavior of raft of size 20 m × 20 m resting in s and with various values of k s using
SAFE (12.2.0) software.

2.1 Method 1
The values of Modulus of sub grade reactions are obtained form IS 2950 - Part I (1981)[13] Appendix
B (Clause 3.1 f) Table 1- Modulus of sub grade reactions for cohesion less soil (Valid fo r 30 cm x 30 cm plate)
and follo wing correction are applied for the obtained values as per IS 9214 -1979 (Reaffirmed 2007) and Bowles
recommendations
Correction for plate size 75 cm (IS 9214-1979 Clause 5.1.1) [14]
Correction for bending of plates (IS 9214-1979 Clause 5.1.3) [14]
Correction for saturation (IS 9214-1979 Clause 5.1.4) [14]
Correction for size of rafts Terzaghi recommendation. (Equation 9-3 and 9-4, Bowles 1996) [1]

2.2 Method 2
The values of ks are calcu lated using IS 2950 - Part I (1981) [13] laboratory method for stratified
deposits or deposits with lenses of different materials.

Eq (2.1)

Es = Modulus of elasticity of soil (correlated with the soil consistency, and Consistency of the soil and SPT-N
values are correlated by Table 3-4 Empirical values for consistency of granular soils based on the SPT
Bowles,1996) [15]

E = Young's modulus of foundation material

μ = Poisson's ratio of soil (correlated with the N value by Table 2-7, Bowles 1996) [1]

I = Moment of inertia for the foundation

2.3 Method 3
The values of the sub grade modulus (ks ) are Calculated considering size effect of raft as per equations
in Bowles, 1996 [15].

Eq (3.1)

Eq (3.2)

2651
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Eq (3.3)

I1 and I2 from TABLE 5-2 (Bowles, 1996) [15]

Influence factor IF -Figure 5-7 Use actual footing width and depth dimension for this D/ B rat io. (Bo wles, 1996)
[15]

Es = Modulus of elasticity of soil (correlated with the soil consistency, and Consistency of the soil and SPT-N
values are correlated by Table 3-4 Emp irical values for consistency of granular soils based on the SPT Bowles
1996)

μ = Poisson's ratio of soil (correlated with the N value by Table 2-7, Bowles 1996) [15]

3.MODELING AND ANALYSIS

Raft foundation of size 20 m x 20 m is modeled using SAFE and analyzed with static loading
conditions for different SPT N values for sand.

3.1 Raft specifications and loads considered

Type of foundation : Square Raft

Length of Raft : 20 m

Breadth of raft : 20 m

Thickness of Raft : 0.8 m

Edge distance of raft : 2.5 m on all sides

No of Bays along X direction :3

No of Bays along Y direction :3

Bay length in all direction :5m

Material : M30 concrete

Dead Load: Self weight of the raft

Live load: 3500 kN on each column acting axially

Load combination : 1.5 DL + 1.5 LL

Soft ware used : SAFE 12.2.0

3.2 Finite element analysis

The Slab Analysis by the Finite Element method software “SAFE” is used in the present work for its
simp licity. In the analysis, SAFE converts the object-based model created by the user into a finite element
model, called the analysis model [16]. The fin ite element mesh used in the analysis is a rectangular mesh based

2652
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

on a maximu m acceptable element size. The soil on wh ich raft is resting is idealized as a spring of known
rig idity and is modeled using values of modulus of sub -grade reaction. [17]The effect of variation of above
values on the structural behavior of raft is studied. Efforts have been made to present the results showing the
variation with respect to different methods and different soil properties.

3.3 Raft foundation details

Figure (1): Raft Foundati on Details

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Modulus of sub grade reaction

50000
Method 1(dry)
Modulus of sub grade reaction (kN/m 3 )

40000 Method 1 (saturated)

Method 2
30000
Method 3

20000

10000

0
10

25

40

50
55

65

80

95
15
20

30
35

45

60

70
75

85
90
5

100

SPT - N

Figure (2): Modulus of sub grade reactions varying with S PT N

2653
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Figure 2 is the comparison chart of SPT-N and M odulus of sub grade reaction calculated using all three methods.
From the figure, the value of modulus of sub grade reaction can be obtained by knowing the SPT- N value of the soil layer.
Figure. 2 show that Method 3 g ives the lowest values of Modulus of sub grade reactions (ks ). Th is may be due to
the reason that ks for method 3 is evaluated by considering different parameters like Young's modulus of soil,
size of the footing and depth of hard layer. The highest values of k s are obtained by Method 1 since the method
has not considered the elastic property of the soil and raft.

4.2 Finite element Analysis

The structural behavior of Raft has been analyzed by SAFE with varying different Modulus of sub
grade reactions and results are correlated with SPT –N values. The specifications of the raft are discussed earlier.

2900
Maximum positve bending Moment

2800
2700
2600
2500
(kN m)

2400 Method 1(dry)

2300 Method 1 (saturated)
2200 Method 2
2100 Method 3
2000
10
15

25

35
40

50

60
65

75

90
20

30

45

55

70

80
85

95
5

100
SPT-N

Figure (3): S PT – N vs. Maximum positive Bending Moment

Figure 3 shows the Bending Moment of Raft foundation which is calculated using the values of
Modulus of sub grade reactions obtained fro m Fig. 1 and the respective Bending Mo ment results correlated with
the SPT- N values. The bending mo ment values are decreased with increasing SPT-N value. The values
obtained all the methods show that there difference in the values of Maximu m positive bending mo ment with
respect to SPT-N is minimum.

2654
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

2250

2200

2150
Shear Force (kN)

2100
Method 1 (Dry) Method (Saturated)

2050
Method 2 Method 3
2000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SPT-N

Figure (4): Variation of Shear Force with SPT N

Figure 4 shows the Shear Force of Raft foundation which is calculated using the values of Modulus of
sub grade reactions obtained from Fig. 1 and the respective Maximu m shear Force results correlated with the
SPT- N values. The Maximu m values are obtained in the middle strip fo r the SPT-N less than 20, then its started
to increasing and maximu m value shifted from end column strips.

0.4000 Method 1 (dry)

0.3500

0.3000 Methd 2 (saturated)

Displacement (m)

0.2500
Method 3
0.2000

0.1500 Method 4

0.1000

0.0500

0.0000
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95
5

100

SPT-N

Figure (5): S PT – N vs. Displacement

Figure 5 shows the displacement of Raft foundation which is calculated using the values of M odulus of reaction
obtained from Fig. 1 and the respective displacement results are correlated with the SPT- N values.

2655
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Figure (6): S oil pressure distribution for minimum Figure (7): Soil pressure distribution for
value of ks - 2500 kN/m 3
maximum value of k s - 70000kN/m3

Figure 6 shows the Soil pressure distribution for the lowest modulus and Figure 7 shows the same for
the highest modulus from wh ich the effect of soil structure interaction on the Raft resting on sand can be
visualized.

Figure. 8 Displacement contour Figure. 9 Displacement contour

(ks - 2500 kN/m3) (Ks - 70000 kN/m3)

2656
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

Figure 8 shows the displacement contour for the lowest sub grade modulus and Figure 9 shows the
same for the highest sub grade modulus fro m which the effect of soil structure interaction on the Raft resting on
sand can be visualized.

5. CONCLUS IONS

5.1 Modulus of sub grade reaction

Figure. 2 shows that Method 3 g ives lowest values of Modulus of sub grade react ions (ks ) by considering
different parameters like Young's modulus of soil, size of the footing and depth of hard layer. The highest values
of ks are obtained by Method 1 and there are variations in the values of sub grade reactions when the elastic
property of the soil and raft is not considered.

5.2 Finite element Analysis

1. Bending moment – Fro m the Figure 3 its observe that the maximu m bending mo ments values not showing
much variation and its observed that the effect of ks on Bending moment is minimum.

2. Shear force - Figure 4 shows that the maximu m shear force values not showing much variation and its
observed that the effect of ks on shear force is min imu m and the maximu m values obtained at middle strip o f
the raft up to SPT –N 20 and after that the maximu m value shifted to end strip of the raft.

3. Soil pressure distributions – Soil p ressure distribution below the raft having direct relation ship with the sub
grade modulus of the soil in which raft is resting. If the modulus is low maximu m pressure is at middle of
the raft which leads to maximu m shear at the middle of the raft..With increase of modulus of sub grade
reaction pressure distribution is uniform and maximu m shearforce shifting fro m middle of the raft to edges
of the raft which also reduces the shear forces and also avoids the shear cracks of the raft.

4. Displacement contours
Co mparing Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 the displacement of the raft is changing in a way that for lower ks value the raft
displacement is more on the center of the raft and as the value of ks increasing the maximu m deflect ion
shifted to individual columns location this implies while designing raft resting on Sand with Lower SPT -N
should be designed with considering spring constant and comparing the soil pressure distribution and
deflection profile of the raft its is observed that contact pressure and soil settlement of the raft is d irectly
proportional.All the results imply that the magnitude Bending mo ment and shear force are less susceptible to
modulus of sub grade reaction. A small variation in modulus of sub grade reaction leads to much change in
stability of the raft foundation and The finite element analysis shows that lower Ks has more influence on the
stability of the raft than the higher values of Ks . Therefo re, for safety the Method 3 (Bowles, 1996) is
recommended to evaluate the Modulus of sub grade reactions for raft foundation design resting in sand
which will give lower value for same SPT-N as compared to other methods .

2657
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

REFERENCES

[1] Sarth Chandar Gupta (1997), Raft Foundations: Design and Analysis with practical Approach.

[2] Srinivasulu P. and Vaidyanathan C.V. (1977) Handbook of Machine Foundations.

[3] Kame G. S., Ukarande S. K., Borgaonkar K. and Sawant V. A. (2008), “A Paramet ric Study on Raft
Foundation”, the 12th International Conference of International Association for Co mputer Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, India, Vol. 1, pp.3077-3085.

[4] Marto, A., Latifi, N., Janbaz, M., Kholghifard, M ., Khari, M., A limohammadi, P., & Banadaki, A. D. (2012).
Foundation size effect on modulus of sub grade reaction on sandy soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 17 S, 2523-2530.

[5] More S.T. and Bindu R.S (2015) “Effect of Mesh size on finite Element analysis of Plate structure”, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 181-185, ISSN: 2319-5967 IJESIT.

[6] Brénousky J.S, Breeveld (2013) Modeling the Interaction between Structure and Soil for Shallow Foundations -
A Co mputational Modeling Approach- Master of Science Thesis, Ballast Nedam Engineering (BNE),Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Geosciences (CEG) Structural Engineering, Structural Mechanics (SM ) Delft Un iversity
of Technology (TU Delft)

[7] Abdul Hussein Haider M., “Effects of Flexural Rigidity and Soil Modulus on the Linear Stat ic Analysis of Raft
Foundations”, Journal of Babylon University/Pure and Applied Sciences/ No.(2)/ Vol.(19): 2011.

[8] Gagin V. and Ivanilov P. (2008), “Analysis of Lengthy Structures Resting on Mu lti-Layer Soil Foundation
Taking Into Account Stochastic Behavior of So il”, Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, Moscow, Russia, Vo l.
XXX, No. 3–4.

[9] Reza Z. M. and Janbaz M. (2008), “Foundation Size Effect on Modulus of Sub grade Reaction in Clayey
Soil’, EJGE, Tehran, Iran, Vol. 13, Bund E, pp. 1- 8.

[10] Widjaja B. (2008), “Parametric Studies for Obtaining the Dimension of Soil Imp roved Area”, Dinamika Teknik
Sipil, Volume 8, No. 1, pp. 31–35.

[11] Ismael N. F. (1987), “Coefficient of Sub grade Reaction fo r Footings on Desert Sands”, Transportation
Research Board Business Office, Washington, USA, Research Record No. 1137, pp. 82-89.

[12] Vignesh ku mar D and Soundara B (2016), “Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction of RC Mu lti Storey Build ings on
Different Foundations - A Rev iew” International Journal for Research in Technological Studies Vo l. 3, Issue 11,
October 2016 ISSN (online): 2348-1439.

[13] Balamurugan.E, jagadeesan.A, (2018), “Geographic Routing Resilient To Location Errors ”, International Journal
Of Innovations In Scientific And Engineering Research,Volume5 ,No 3, pp.21-26.
[14] IS2950-Part1(1981), Code of practice for design and construction of raft foundations, Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi, India.

2658
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

[15] IS 9214-1979, code of Practice for Method of determination of modulus of sub grade reaction (K Value) of soils
in field.

[16] Bowles, J. E. (1996), Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, The McGraw-Hill.

[17] SAFE (2014), SAFE v12 Manuals, Computers & Structures, Inc., USA.

2659
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

2660
2661
2662