Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

on Multi Storey Buildings on Mat

Foundation
Ankit Kumar Jha, Kumar Utkarsh and Rajesh Kumar

Abstract The analysis of the interaction between structural foundation and

supporting soil is of fundamental importance for structural engineers. The present
Indian standards for distribution and transfer of loads from superstructure to the soil
assume rigid connection between foundation and soil. This is attributed to the
perception that neglecting the effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) leads to a
conservative design. However its effect becomes signicant for certain class of
structures such as high rise building subjected to dynamic loads. Results of such
analyses provide information which can be used in the structural design of foundation.
Multi-storey symmetric buildings have been modeled and subjected to seismic load.
Finite Element Method was employed to compare the response of the structure under
various load combinations for two cases: one with a rigid foundation soil connection
and the other taking considerations of foundation-soil flexibility. Fictional contact has
been used to imitate SSI effect. The results obtained showed increase in displacement
at different storey when SSI effects are taken into account. Higher value of storey drift
has been observed at lower heights. This study reveals that the behavior of structure
changes with the change in nature of interaction between soil and foundation elements.
Soil-structure interaction may become critical in some cases, however, uncertainties
too exists with SSI. Hence a comprehensive and extensive method of analysis has to be
devised for accurate analysis, and an economical and conservative design.

Keywords Soil-structure interaction

Response spectrum
method Seismic analysis Multi-storey building

Finite element

1 Introduction
The response of any structural system comprising of more than one element depends
upon the interaction between its structural components. In case of SoilFoundationStructure system, the soil-structure interaction plays a key role in determining
A.K. Jha (&)
K. Utkarsh
R. Kumar
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India
Springer India 2015
V. Matsagar (ed.), Advances in Structural Engineering,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6_56

703

704

A.K. Jha et al.

response of the structure. However in current practice the effects of supporting soil are
neglected primarily because of complexities associated in the modelling of soil and
assumptions of conservative design on simplication of the model. Apparently, this
perception stems from oversimplications in the nature of seismic forces adopted in
most of the present codes [1]. Even the present Indian code IS 1893:2002 Part-I which
addresses the need of dynamic analysis in buildings however, do not provide detailed
provisions for including SSI. There has been continuous research on the effect of this
interaction on the whole structure [2]. Mainly two methods have been devised for soilfoundation interaction analysis namely the direct analysis and substructure method
[39]. Direct analysis includes soil and structure in the same model and analyses it as a
whole whereas substructure method treats each component separately and then
combines them to get the result [10].
This paper addresses the issue of soil structure interaction and gives a detailed
comparison between xed base type analysis and structure with a flexible base
subjected to ground motion. A number of three bay multi-storey framed structures
with different heights have been modeled on mat foundation, with same mat depth
for each case. Finite element method (FEM) has been employed to study the effects
of soil on response of the structure subjected to ground acceleration. The model is
simulated on ANSYS 14.5 (general purpose nite element software). The model is
exited from the base and response of the structure is calculated. Deformation along
X axis (horizontal) has been compared for different cases. For better accuracy and
results non-linearity associated with structure has also been considered.

2 Soil-Structure Interaction
Soil structure interaction (SSI) refers to the effect of soil and its sub-grade on
response of the structure. SSI accounts for the difference between the actual
response of the structure and the response when the connection is assumed to be
rigid [11]. SSI effects can be classied as inertial interaction effects, kinematic
interaction effects, and effects of soil-foundation flexibility [12]. With reference to
engineering analysis these effects can be referred to:
Foundation stiffness and damping. Shear, moment and torsion are generated due to
vibration, causing displacements and rotations at the interface. These displacements dissipate energy, which signicantly affects response of the system. All of
this originates due to the flexibility of the foundation. These contribute to overall
structural flexibility and increases the building period [10, 13]. The relation
between time periods of single degree of freedom system can be expressed as:
T~

s
kfixed kfixed h2
1

kx
kh

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

705

where T~ is the new time period, T is the xed base model period, kxed is the
stiffness of xed base model, kx is stiffness of new model in x-direction, kh is the
rotational stiffness, and h is the height of building, for multi-degree freedom
system h is the height of the centre of mass for the rst mode shape.
Foundation Deformation. Flexural, axial, and shear deformations of structural
foundation elements occur as a result of forces and displacements applied by the
superstructure and the soil medium.
Difference between foundation input motions and free-eld ground motions. There
can be difference between foundation input motion (FIM) and free-eld ground
motion because of kinematic interaction and relative deformations at soil
foundation interface.
There are two methods of evaluating the above effects.
Direct analysis: In direct analysis the soil and structure are included within the same
model and analysed as a complete system. The soil and structure both are represented as a continuum. The Direct analyses renders all of the SSI effects,
however in practice, this approach is generally avoided because of high computational time especially when the geometry of the system is complex or irregular.
Substructure approach: This method is rather convenient and a step by step procedure. In the rst step evaluation of free-eld soil motions is done, next step
involves computation of transfer functions to convert free-eld motions into FIM.
Lastly springs are employed to represent stiffness and damping at soil-foundation
interface and then analysis is done on the complete system (Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 Direct method of analysis [10]

706

A.K. Jha et al.

Fig. 2 Substructure method of SSI [13]. a Complete system, b kinematic interaction,

c foundation-soil flexibility, d excitation with FIM of structure with foundation flexibility/damping

3 Modelling and Formulation

3.1 Geometry
As stated earlier the modelling and simulation of the problem has been done on
ANSYS, a nite element software package. Meshing was performed in ANSYS and
the details have been shown in Table 1. In brief G + 7, G + 11, G + 18, and G + 25
multi-storey structures has been subjected to earthquake motions for two different
cases; one with rigid connection to the underlying soil and other taking into considerations of soil foundation flexibility. All the buildings were symmetric in plan
with three bays. The size of beams and columns were taken as 450 450 mm and
300 500 mm respectively with slab thickness as 250 mm. It is quite obvious that
the shape and size of beams and columns are decided based on serviceability and

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

Table 1 Details of meshed
soil-structure interaction
model

707

Building

Total number
of nodes

Total number
of elements

G
G
G
G

62,995
72,533
109,615
145,222

29,270
24,252
52,646
71,009

+
+
+
+

7
11
18
25

Fig. 3 Isometric meshed model of G + 11 storey building with underlying soil

strength criteria, and hence for different storey height their dimensions may not be
the same. However, the dimensions adopted here were unied for all class of
buildings. This is justied in the manner that the prime purpose here is to compute
and compare stresses and other parameters at various sections in the building. It is
suggested that for practical design purpose all the relevant parameters should be
checked after analysis and then the dimensions should be modied accordingly
(Fig. 3).

708

A.K. Jha et al.

3.2 Soil Model

Soil beneath the foundation and surrounding the building has been modeled in three
layers each having different sets of parameters. The boundary of the soil has been
taken 25 m in horizontal direction from centre of the structure, which is more than
three to four times the radius of foundation. This has been done to minimise the
effect of reflexive waves [14]. Similarly vertical boundary has been taken 45 m deep
from the centre of foundation to ensure the same, and divided into three layers.
Drucker-Prager Yield criterion has been used to model soil and concrete with other
suitable physical properties.

3.2.1 Drucker-Prager Model

A Drucker-Prager yield criterion is used for modeling soil and other granular
material such as concrete. It is used to determine whether the material has failed or
undergone plastic yielding. Mathematically it is expressed as
p
J2 A BI1

where I1 is the rst invariant of the Cauchy stress and J2 is the second invariant of
the deviatoric part of the Cauchy stress. A and B are constants which are determined
from experiments (Table 2).

3.2.2 Soil-Foundation Contact

Several approaches for modeling soil structure interface have been proposed. The
most common and widely used is the xed base assumption model. A xed base
model assumes rigid foundation elements connected to a rigid base. However such
model is just a simplication of the actual situation. In reality the flexibility of soil
and foundation elements comes into play and hence many contact models have
Table 2 Material properties
Soil around mat
Top layer of soil
Second layer of soil
Third layer of soil
Concrete NL
Poissons ratio
Bulk density
E Youngs Modulus
angle of friction

(g/cc)

E (MPa)

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.18

2.07
2.07
2.08
2.07
2.5

100
100
150
180
30,000

36
36
22
18

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

709

been proposed such as the rigid bathtub model, baseline model, and Winkler spring
model. In general the soil-foundation contact is represented by complex-valued
impedance function. This impedance function represents frequency dependent
stiffness and damping, where real part corresponds to stiffness and imaginary part is
related to damping. Solution of this function [15] can be mathematically represented as
kj kj ixcj

where, kj denotes the impedance function; kj and cj denotes frequency dependent
foundation stiffness and damping; j denotes modes of displacement.
Different methods of modelling soil are chosen according to requirements and
importance of the structure. In this analysis the contact between soil and foundation
has been considered to frictional. The coefcient of friction was taken as 0.36.

4 Analysis
4.1 Earthquake Vibrations
EI Centro Ground motions in all three global directions were selected for the purpose of carrying out SSI investigations. The selected data has been converted from
time domain into frequency domain using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Since
frequency domain is only capable of dealing with linear responses, therefore all the
results hence obtained are as per governing linear methods of analysis. The
transformed input motions were applied at the base of the model. A graphical view
of the original ground motion data and the modied data in all three directions has
been shown in the following gures (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).

Fig. 4 EI Centro ground motion data in north south direction converted to frequency domain

710

A.K. Jha et al.

Fig. 5 EI Centro ground motion data in east-west direction converted to frequency domain

Fig. 6 EI Centro ground motion data in vertical direction converted to frequency domain

Fig. 7 EI Centro ground motion data in north south direction in time domain

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

711

Fig. 8 EI Centro ground motion data in east-west direction in time domain

Fig. 9 EI Centro ground motion data in vertical direction in time domain

4.2 Modal Analysis

Modal analysis is used to determine natural mode shapes and frequencies of any
body. It is the study of dynamic properties of a body under free vibrations. This also
serves as a prerequisite to perform response spectrum analysis. The modal analysis
was performed to determine natural modes of frequencies of the structural model.
150 modes of frequencies were determined; this was done so as to keep effective
mass more than 70 % in the each direction. It was found that a major contribution of
effective mass came from a specic mode, which was different for each model.

712

A.K. Jha et al.

4.3 Response Spectrum Analysis

The general dynamic equation associated with the response of the structure to
ground motion is given as
_ M
Kut C ut
ut mx
ugx t my ugy t mz ugz t

where K is the stiffness matrix; C is the damping matrix; M is the diagonal mass
_
matrix; u, u,
u are the relative displacements, velocity, and acceleration. with
respect to the ground; mx, my, mz are the unit acceleration loads; and ugx , ugy , and ugz
are components of ground acceleration.
A response spectrum analysis derives the maximum response of this equation
and gives it as output. The responses can be in form of displacement, velocity, or
acceleration. This method uses the modes obtained from the modal analysis and
based on modal frequency, modal mass, and combination rules value of the total
maximum response of the system is given as output. There are many combination
rules such as Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method, Complete
Quadratic Combination (CQC) method. Response spectrum analysis can be of two
types namely; single-point response spectrum analysis, and multi-point response
spectrum analysis. In this paper all the modes from the modal analysis were used to
perform the response spectrum, single-point method was used and SRSS method of
combination was applied.

5 Results and Discussions

The analysis performed on the soil-structure model render wide variations in
deformation and stresses when soil-structure interaction is considered. A plot of
maximum deformation along X-axis versus storey height shows high value for the
frictional model (SSI model) than the xed base model. This was expected as the
restraint near contact region of soil and structure was released. A comparison of
storey drift between the xed base model and the frictional model shows that in
xed case the deformation followed the general pattern where the values of
deformation at a xed level increased with increasing overall building height. This
can be clearly seen from the graph (Fig. 11) that at a xed level say 9.5 m the
deformation follows the pattern G + 25 > G + 18 > G + 11 > G + 7. However, in the
case of frictional model the values of deformation at low level (as 9.5 m) is highest
for G + 7 building, and nearly same for G + 18 and G + 25 building. Whereas, for
the higher levels, the trend followed is same as for xed base model (Fig. 10).
Values of maximum shear stress for all building models have been found to be
located at the base of the rst storey and at the junction of middle column of the
outer column line. A further investigation shows that the frictional model has
comparatively higher value than the xed base model except in the case for G + 25

Storey drift along X-axis (mm)

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

713

35

G+7

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5.75 9.5 13.25 17 20.75 24.5 28.25 32

Storey drift along X-axis (mm)

Storey height (m)

35

G+11

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5.75

9.5 13.25 17

20.75 24.5 28.25 32

Storey drift along X-axis (mm)

Storey height (m)

35

G+18

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5.75

9.5 13.25 17

20.75 24.5 28.25 32

Storey drift along X-axis (mm)

Storey height (m)

40

G+25

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5.75

9.5 13.25 17

20.75 24.5 28.25 32

Storey height (m)

without SSI

with SSI

Fig. 10 Storey drift along X-direction versus storey height for all the four multi-storey buildings

714

A.K. Jha et al.

G+18

G+7

G+11

G+25

Storey drift along X-axis (mm)

25

Storey drift without SSI

20

15

10

5.75

9.5

13.25

17

20.75

24.5

28.25

32

28.25

32

Storey drift along X-axis (mm)

Storey height (m)

40

Storey drift with SSI

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5.75

9.5

13.25

17

20.75

24.5

Storey Height (m)

G+7

Fig. 11

G+25

G+18

G+11

Cumulative of storey drift for all four buildings in one graph

storey building. This is in contrast to what is normally expected. SSI effects are
associated with increase in time period of the system and hence it is expected that
the response of the structure under ground motion should decrease but this is not
always true as evident from the results obtained (Table 3).

Table 3 Values of maximum

shear stress (N/mm2)

Building

Frictional contact model

Fixed base model

G
G
G
G

1.0703e+06
9.3034e+05
1.1443e+0.6
8.1327e+0.5

3.1442e+05
4.7505e+05
5.5426e+05
8.4921e+05

+
+
+
+

7
11
18
25

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

715

References
1. Mylonakis G, Gaazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: benecial or detrimental.
J Earthquake Eng 4(3):277301
2. Taylor DW (1964) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York
3. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil structure interaction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
4. Wolf JP (1988) Soil structure interaction analysis in time domain. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs
5. Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of Structures, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, Tokyo
6. Gupta S, Lin TW, Penzien J, Yeh CS (1980) Hybrid modelling of soil structure interaction.
Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, report
no. UCB/EERC-80/09
7. Gomez-Masso A, Lysmer J, Chen J-C, Seed HB (1979) Soil structure interaction in different
seismic environments. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, report no. UCB/EERC-79/18
8. Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai C, Seed HB (1975) FLUSH: a computer program for approximate 3D
dynamic analysis of soil-structure problems. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, report no. EERC75-30
9. Gutierrez JA (1976) Substructure method for earthquake analysis of structure-soil interaction.
Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, report
no. EERC 76-9
10. NIST GCR 12-917-21 (2012) Soil-structure interaction for building structures, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Sept 2012
11. Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(9):822832
12. Part-2, FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and
other structures (FEMA, 2009)
13. Stewart JP Overview of soil-structure interaction principles, University of California, Los
Angeles, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
14. Tabatabaiefara HR, Massumi A (2010) A simplied method to determine seismic responses of
reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure
interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):12591267
15. Luco JE, Westmann RA (1971) Dynamic response of circular footings. J Eng Mech 97
(5):13811395