0% found this document useful (0 votes)

63 views33 pages

Designing Cellular Raft Foundations

Q: Why is finite element analysis preferred for flexible raft foundation design?

Finite element analysis is preferred for flexible raft foundation design because it can accurately model the complex interactions between the flexible raft and the variable soil pressures beneath it. This method provides detailed insights into deflections, stress distributions, and potential failure points, allowing for more precise and optimized designs, which would be infeasible through manual calculations given the variability and complexity inherent in flexible foundations .

Q: How do flexible and rigid approach differ in raft foundation design?

In raft foundation design, the flexible approach assumes that the raft is flexible relative to the supporting soil, which results in non-uniform contact pressure and varying deflection across the raft slab. This can be idealized using the beam on elastic foundation theory. In contrast, the rigid approach treats the raft as a stiff component relative to the soil, assuming it as fully rigid without considering the soil’s elastic properties. The designer must choose between these methods based on the specific project requirements. Practically, neither a raft is wholly flexible nor rigid; they represent theoretical extremes that guide design decisions .

Q: How do design principles differ between flexible and rigid raft foundation methods?

Design principles for flexible raft foundation methods involve considering the elastic interaction between the raft and the supporting ground, using theories like the beam on elastic foundation model to assess deflection and pressure distribution. Conversely, the rigid method treats the raft as a stiff entity, ignoring soil elasticity, and uses simplified calculations based on the center of gravity of loads to estimate ground pressures and structural responses. This rigid method is more schematic, often leading to conservative design values .

Q: What factors influence the choice of design method for a raft foundation?

The choice of design method for a raft foundation is influenced by factors such as the relative stiffness of the raft compared to the supporting soil, the accuracy and availability of soil data, the nature of loads, and the computational tools at the designer's disposal. The flexible method, offering lower design values, requires finite element analysis, whereas the rigid approach, suitable for hand calculations, assumes higher design values. Designers must weigh these factors to ensure structural integrity and cost efficiency .

Q: What implications do future mining activities have on the design of raft foundations?

Future mining activities can significantly impact raft foundation design due to the risk of subsidence, which can lead to uneven settlement and structural instability. To counter these potential effects, designers might opt for cellular raft foundations, which offer enhanced flexibility and stability to accommodate the anticipated subsidence waves, ensuring structural integrity and safety over time despite the challenging geotechnical conditions .

Q: What is the role of net allowable bearing pressure in cellular raft design?

Net allowable bearing pressure plays a critical role in cellular raft design by defining the maximum pressure that can be safely applied at the foundation-soil interface without causing excessive settlement. It guides the designer in ensuring that the foundation remains stable under anticipated loads, often determined through soil investigations, and serves as a vital parameter in evaluating the raft's suitability for various geotechnical conditions .

Q: In the context of raft foundation design, what is a cellular raft, and why might it be selected as a design solution?

A cellular raft consists of a suspended slab, a bearing slab, and adjoining beams. It is chosen for scenarios anticipating future subsidence, such as in mining areas, due to its capacity to handle differential settlement. The suspended slab deals with ground floor loads, which, combined with other structural loads, determine the contact pressure for designing the lower slab. This system distributes forces efficiently and is ideal for conditions where geotechnical factors necessitate such a robust foundation solution .

Q: What challenges arise in determining actual ground pressures in raft foundations?

Determining actual ground pressures in raft foundations is challenging because the pressures depend on the sub-strata, the raft's flexibility, and the loads at the time of measurement, all of which cannot be estimated accurately. Theoretical calculations often fail to reflect actual conditions, complicating the assessment. Thus, any design inevitably operates between the flexible and rigid methods, highlighting the complexity of achieving precise ground pressure measurements .

Q: How is the eccentricity of resultant loads considered in rigid raft foundation design?

In rigid raft foundation design, eccentricity is considered by analyzing the resultant loads' position relative to the centroid of the raft. The eccentricities are calculated for both directions and used to determine induced moments. These moments, along with other design parameters like axial loads and section modulus, help estimate the resultant ground pressures at the building's corners. Accurate consideration of eccentricity influences structural integrity and stability .

Q: What are the key components of a cellular raft, and how do they function structurally?

The key components of a cellular raft include the suspended slab, bearing slab, and adjoining beams. Structurally, the suspended slab carries the load from the ground floor, transmitting it to the lower slab as contact pressure. The lower slab acts as an inverted suspended slab, distributing this load through the beams to manage and mitigate differential settlement effectively. These components work together to provide a stable foundation capable of accommodating various geotechnical and structural factors .

This document discusses the design of cellular raft foundations, which are used to distribute loads over weak soil conditions. It outlines the principles of design, including the flexible and rigid approaches, and provides a worked example to illustrate the calculations involved in determining the foundation's size and reinforcement requirements. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding ground pressures and the structural elements involved in the design process.

Uploaded by

noahyosef456

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

63 views33 pages

Designing Cellular Raft Foundations

Uploaded by

noahyosef456

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

STRUCTURES CENTRE

Structures from first principles!

HOME PRIVACY POLICY ABOUT SITE EUROCODES ANALYSIS

LESSONS FROM FAILURES GEOTECHNICS

 25 OCTOBER 2021  BY OMOTORIOGUN VICTOR

Cellular Raft Foundation |

Worked Example
This article presents the design of cellular raft foundation, a
spread foundation arrangement with two way interlocking
ground beams with a ground bearing slab in contact with
the soil and a suspended slab at the top surface

Introduction

Raft foundations belongs to the family of spread foundations –

foundations that are cited on a shallow bearing stratum. They are
necessitated by poor underlying stratum, or where the required depth
to a suitable bearing stratum is excessive, where the load carrying
capacity of the underlying soil strata deteriorates with depth or even
where the loads from a superstructure is enormous relative to the
capacity of the soil. Rafts are employed to spread the applied loads
over a large base area, at least the building footprint, thereby reducing
the contact bearing stress to acceptable limits.

···
Figure 1: Cellular Raft Foundation

There are several types of raft foundation, this has been fully
appraised in a previous post, (See: Foundation Types: Selection
Criteria). However, the focus of this post is on the cellular raft
foundation (Figure 1) which offers extra advantage when compared to
the slab rafts or beam strip rafts. First, they are very suitable where
very heavy concentrated forces are to be sustained on relatively
weaker soils. Secondly, the removal of the overburden as a result of
the hole created by the cellular invariably leads to an increase in
bearing capacity. Notwithstanding, the cellular spaces created also
offers the advantage for use as living spaces, storage and for service
installations.

A typical cellular raft foundation consists of a series of deep

reinforced concrete beams connecting a suspended slab with the
bearing slab. The suspended slab can be equated with the ground floor
slab in a typical structure, but in this case completely suspended from
the ground, while the bearing slab below the suspended slab makes
the contact with ground.
···

Preliminary Sizing & Considerations

Having selected a cellular raft as a viable structural solution, at the

preliminary design stage, the designer of a cellular raft must decide on
the depth required. This depends on the depth of overburden required
to be removed and the required flexural moment capacity of the
cellular form. It is very common for the raft depth to be dictated by the
estimated flexural moment to be induced, with the reduced
overburden load being a bonus. For example, a building with span
restrictions in any directions could lead to large shear forces and
flexural moments thus, requiring very deep beams.
The design of a raft foundations can be sometimes complicated
especially for beam strip rafts or cellular rafts. The designer must
make a judicious choice between the flexible approach or the
conventional rigid base method.

In the flexible approach, the raft is flexible relative to the supporting

soil, the contact pressure is anything but uniform and the deflection of
the raft slab will vary with location. This can be idealized using the
beam on elastic foundation theory. The rigid method on the flip side
assumes that the raft is stiff relative to the soil, hence the raft is
idealized as fully rigid member without any consideration of the
elastic properties of the soil and its interaction with the structure. In
theory, either of the flexible or rigid approach can be used to design a
raft, however, in reality no raft is wholly flexible nor is it totally rigid,
these are merely reasonable assumptions that lies completely within
the remit of the designer.
The flexible approach would normally yield lower design values than
the rigid method, but is only suitable with finite element powered
software packages, while the rigid would otherwise give higher design
values and it’s practically suitable for hand calculations.

Design Principle

As stated in the preceding section, the conventional rigid approach

treats the raft as a member that is rigid relative to the soil without
recourse to the elastic properties of the soil. The designer must start
with estimating the design column loads and relating this to the
overall plan of the building and ground pressures. The calculation for
the ground pressure will be based on the center of gravity of the loads
while considering the relative stiffness of the raft itself.

The entire raft is divided into an idealized large beam member in both
directions, and the row of column loads normal to the direction of the
beam is summed up. With this column load applied on the idealized
beam member, the eccentricities of the resultant loads from the
centroid of the raft can be found and used to determine the ground
pressures at the corners of the building (Figure 2). Assume N is the
total axial action; A is the area covered by the raft; ey and ez are the
eccentricities; My and Mz are the induced moment in both direction
due to eccentricities and Zy and Zz are the section modulus assuming a
symmetrical plan. The ground pressure in each corner of the building
can be estimated from the equation:
···

N My
Mz

σ =
±
±

A Zy
Zz

Where: My =N × ey & Mz=N × ez

Figure 2: Point of application of resultant and values of corner pressures

Again, these theoretical pressures do not reflect the reality and would
not necessarily be achieved on site. A difficulty arises when the
designer tries to assess the actual ground pressures. These pressures
would depend on the sub-strata the flexibility of the raft and the loads
occurring at any given time at which these pressures are being
determined.

None of these can be estimated accurately and it’s not necessary to do

so. The true design of a raft is somewhere between the flexibility and
rigid methods.

···

Elements Design
The cellular rafts technically consist of three elements, the suspended
slab, the bearing slab and the adjoining beams. The upper slab is
designed as a purely suspended slab subjected to the design actions at
ground floor level. The load on the ground floor is then added to the
loads coming from other parts of superstructure and taken down to
the slab below to determine the contact pressure at ultimate limit
state. This contact pressure is used to design the lower slab by
considering it as an inverted suspended slab. The actions applied on
the lower slab is then distributed amongst beams and used for the
beam design.

Worked Example

···
The plan shown in figure 3 is the column loads at the base of 8 a storey
concrete frame which is to be founded on a ground where future
mining activity is to be anticipated. In other to deal with the future
likely subsidence wave, a cellular raft has been selected as a very
viable solution considering the geotechnical and structural factors.
The soil investigation report has indicated that a net allowable bearing
pressure of pa = 75kN/m2 is required to keep differential settlement in
check. Carry out sufficient calculation to establish the sizes of the
element and quantity of reinforcements required.

Presumed bearing resistance =75kN/m2

Soil Unit weight = 20 kN/m3

Imposed load (ground floor) = 5kN/m2

Concrete C30/37; Fy = 460Mpa

×
×

Figure 3: Point of application of column loads @ ground level

By inspection, the load is symmetrical about both axes of the building,
hence the point of application of the resultant will coincide with
centroid of the base and thus, there are no eccentricities and the
bearing pressure at the corners and anywhere in the raft will be the
same.

Figure 4: Plan of Cellular Raft

Figure 5: Section through the Raft

Serviceability Limit State

Actions

Superstructure loads

Permanent Actions

Gk,s = 4 (904) + 8 (1789) + 3 (3225)

= 27603kN

Variable Actions

Qk.s = 4 (465) + 8 (889) + 3 (1725)

= 14147kN

Ns = 27603 + 14147 = 41750kN

Foundation loads

Permanent actions

upper slab

= 0.3 × 15 × 30 × 25 = 3375kN

lower slab
= 0.8 × 15 × 30 × 25 = 9000kN

beam webs

= 0.8 × 2.4 × 165 × 25 = 7920kN

Gk,f = 3375 + 9000 + 7920

= 20295kN

Variable Actions

Imposed loading
···

Qk,f = 15 × 30 × 5 = 2250kN

Nf = 20295 + 2250 = 22545kN

Total loads @ SLS

N = 41750 + 22545 = 64295kN

Bearing Pressure Check

N My
Mz

σ =
±
±

A Zy
Zz

×
64295 2
=
= 142.8kN /m
(15 × 30)
If the net pressure at the formation level of 3.5m is, pa = 75kN/m2, the
excess overburden pressure is given as:

2
po = 20 × 3.5 = 70kN /m

2
pT = pa + po = 75 + 70 = 145kN /m

2 2
(σ = 142.8kN /m ) < (pT = 145kN /m )

Ultimate Limit State

Actions

Superstructure loads
Nk,s = (1.35 × 27603) + (1.5 × 14147)

= 58484.6kN

Foundation loads

Nk,f = 1.35 (3375 + 7920) + (1.5 × 2250)

= 18623.25kN

Total loads @ ULS

N = 58484.6 + 18623.25

= 77107.85kN

Bearing pressure
N My
Mz

σ max =

±
±

A Zy
Zz

77107.85 2
=
= 171.35kN /m
(15 × 30)

Designing the Bottom Slab

Having determined the pressure at the ultimate limit state, the

bottom slab is designed as a two-way spanning slab for this pressure
(171.35kN/m2) in accordance with code provisions. It should be noted
that in this case, the load is acting upwards, hence the tensile
reinforcement required in the span would be positioned at the top
while those required at the supports are fixed at the bottom.

Designing the Top Slab

The top slab is designed as any other suspended slab in the
superstructure – designed as two-way spanning slab for the applied
permanent and variable actions.

Designing the Beam

The beams are considered as I concrete sections and are designed for
actions transferred from the bottom slab to the beams. Under normal
conditions, the depth of beam involved would mostly be conservative
relative to the span, hence the corresponding reinforcement would be
light.

Figure 6: Section through cellular foundation details

To view the Full article in pdf, click here

Thank you and please share this post.

POSTED IN STRUCTURES •

Published by Omotoriogun Victor

A dedicated, passion-driven and highly skilled engineer with extensive
knowledge in research, construction and structural design of civil
engineering structures to several codes of practices View all posts by
Omotoriogun Victor

PREV NEXT
The Citicorp Centre Tower: Almost a Geotechnical Design of Concrete
Tragedy Piles to EC7 | Worked Example

One Reply to “Cellular Raft Foundation |

Worked Example”
Seriki Musiliudeen
18 January 2023 at 1:36 pm

Thanks for this explanation. I would like to ask, what text

book can one get further information on cellular rate design.
Also what software acn one use to achieve its design.
REPLY

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *
Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I
comment.

POST COMMENT

Search … 
RECENT POSTS

Fire Safety in Steel-Framed Buildings: Engineering Approaches and Applications

Steel and Off-Site Construction

When Engineers Forget: The Cost of Corporate Memory Loss in Structural

Engineering Practice

Top 10 Iconic Bridges Around the World

Understanding Human – Structure Interaction in Structural Engineering

Jade Royell Balmes Villanueva on Design of Bolted Connections | Worked Example

Chowdary on Structural Design of Helicoidal Staircases | Worked Example

David Oluwatomisin Tella on Foundation Design – Does Eurocode 7 Justify Higher

Bearing Capacity Values?

Mohsin khan on Design of Bolted Connections | Worked Example

Ahmad on [Viewpoint] What Makes a Good Structural Engineer?

CATEGORIES

Select Category

CATEGORIES

Analysis

Composite

Concrete Bridges

Engineering Ethics

Eurocodes

Foundations

Geotechnics

Highrise Buildings

Lessons from Failures

Masonry

Steel

Structures
Timber

Uncategorised

Structures Centre
170 followers

Follow Page Share

Structures Centre
on Sunday

This article explains how steel is used in

off-site construction, where parts are
made in a factory and then assembled
on-site. This speeds up building time,
improves quality, and reduces waste.
Steel’s strength and flexibility make it
ideal for this method.
Read more:
[Link]
off-site-constructi…/
#OffSiteConstruction #SteelConstruction
#ModularBuilding
#ConstructionInnovation #PrefabSteel

Search … 

Fire Safety in Steel-Framed Buildings: Engineering Approaches and Applications

Steel and Off-Site Construction

When Engineers Forget: The Cost of Corporate Memory Loss in Structural
Engineering Practice

Top 10 Iconic Bridges Around the World

Understanding Human – Structure Interaction in Structural Engineering

Jade Royell Balmes Villanueva on Design of Bolted Connections | Worked Example

Chowdary on Structural Design of Helicoidal Staircases | Worked Example

David Oluwatomisin Tella on Foundation Design – Does Eurocode 7 Justify Higher

Bearing Capacity Values?

Mohsin khan on Design of Bolted Connections | Worked Example

Ahmad on [Viewpoint] What Makes a Good Structural Engineer?

CATEGORIES

Select Category

CATEGORIES

Analysis

Composite

Concrete Bridges

Engineering Ethics

Eurocodes

Foundations

Geotechnics

Highrise Buildings

Lessons from Failures

Masonry

Steel

Structures

Timber

Uncategorised
Structures Centre
170 followers

Follow Page Share

Structures Centre
on Sunday

This article explains how steel is used in

Common questions