Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation

incorporating soil–structure interaction
Sekhar Chandra Duttaa,*, Koushik Bhattacharyaa, Rana Royb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Bengal Engineering College (D. U.), Howrah 711 103, West Bengal, India
b
Department of Applied Mechanics, Bengal Engineering College (D. U.), Howrah 711 103, West Bengal, India
Accepted 2 July 2004

Abstract
In the conventional design, buildings are generally considered to be fixed at their bases. In reality, flexibility of the supporting soil medium
allows some movement of the foundation. This decreases the overall stiffness of the building frames resulting in a subsequent increase in the
natural periods of the system and the overall response is altered. The present study considers low-rise building frames resting on shallow
foundations, viz. isolated and grid foundation. Influence of soil–structure interaction on elastic and inelastic range responses of such building
frames due to seismic excitations has been examined in details. Representative acceleration–time histories such as artificially generated
earthquake history compatible with design spectrum, ground motion recorded during real earthquake and idealized near-fault ground motion,
have been used to analyze the response. Variation in response due to different influential parameters regulating the effect of soil-flexibility is
presented and interpreted physically. The study shows that the effect of soil–structure interaction may considerably increase such response at
least for low-rise stiff structural system.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic response; Ground motion; Low-rise buildings; Soil–structure interaction; Isolated footing; Grid foundation

1. Introduction soil structure interaction in the present study. In this context,

a critical examination of the response spectrum curve
The common design practice for dynamic loading reveals that the spectral acceleration may change consider-
assumes the building frames to be fixed at their bases. In ably with change in natural period. So, such increase in
reality, supporting soil medium allows movement to some lateral natural period may considerably alter the response of
extent due to its natural ability to deform. This may decrease the building frames under seismic excitation. Such possi-
the overall stiffness of the structural system and hence, may bility is highlighted through a very limited number of case
increase the natural periods of the system. Such influence of studies in a few earlier research works [1,2]. In case of high-
partial fixity of structures at the foundation level due to soil- rise structures, i.e. for flexible systems, lateral natural period
flexibility in turn alters the response. On the other hand, the is expected to lie in the long period region of the response
extent of fixity offered by soil at the base of the structure spectrum curve. Hence, the response is generally expected
depends on the load transferred from the structure to the soil to get reduced due to an increase in lateral natural period for
as the same decides the type and size of foundation to be such systems. Thus, it is believed that the conventional
provided. Such an interdependent behaviour between soil practice of ignoring the effect of soil-flexibility in the
and structure regulating the overall response is referred to as process of design may lead to a conservative one. However,
for low-rise buildings, generally, the lateral natural period is
very small and may lie within the sharply increasing zone of
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Civil Engineering,
Bengal Engineering College, Deemed University, Howrah 711 103, West
response spectrum. Hence, an increase in lateral natural
Bengal, India. Tel.: C91-33-668-4561; fax: C91-33-668-2916. period due to the effect of soil–structure interaction may
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.C. Dutta). cause an increase in the spectral acceleration ordinate.
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.07.001
894 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Moreover, due to the effect of soil-flexibility, various along one of the diagonals and thus, effectively behaves like
natural frequencies may space closer leading to an increase a compressive strut. This attributes significant additional
in cross-modal coupling terms contributing to the overall lateral stiffness to the buildings [6,7] and changes the shear
seismic response. Thus, the effect of soil–structure inter- distribution [8]. To incorporate this additional stiffening
action on the dynamic characteristics, at least for low-rise effect in the building frames, ‘equivalent strut approach’
buildings, may be of major concern. The aim of the present [6,7] has been used in the present study. The dimensions and
study is to observe the effect of the same on seismic properties of these diagonally placed equivalent compres-
response of buildings under three typical kinds of ground sive struts have been chosen from the literatures [6,7,9] to
motions viz. (a) two uncorrelated artificially generated simulate the effect of the brick walls. However, at the
earthquake time histories consistent with the design locations of openings, the stiffness due to brick in-fill is not
spectrum of Indian earthquake code [3], (b) one recorded expected. But, at the same time, the frame and panel of
earthquake history and (c) idealized near-fault-ground windows/doors may provide a substantial amount of
motion. Efforts have earlier been directed to study the stiffness, which may compensate for the stiffness contri-
seismic behaviour of multistoried building frames. For bution of the brick in-fill if it were at the openings. It is
instance, a recent revealing investigation [4] has focused on difficult to assert, without case specific detailed investi-
the behaviour of a six storey and a 20-storey building with gation, as regard to the extent of such complimentary
steel moment resisting frame. An exhaustive list of the same contribution in real situations as the same may depend on
is available in NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the many factors such as size of panel, orientation of grillage,
Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings material used etc. Hence, the equivalent struts to represent
[5]. However, the present effort has its significance in the action of brick in-fill walls have been considered even at
incorporating the effect of soil–structure interaction par- the locations of openings as a fair compromise between
ticularly on low-rise building frames in its real three- rigor and simplicity. Such idealization has been presented
dimensional form. Furthermore, a wide variety of such schematically in Fig. 1a and b for a typical low-rise building
buildings are included in the scope of the study through a
frame. All the building frames are analyzed with and
systematic and detailed parametric variation to comprehend
without tie beams. In reality, tie beams, placed in the form
the influence of soil–structure interaction and evaluate
of grids connecting the columns at the plinth level
seismic base shear realistically.
strengthen the column members by reducing the effective
It is customary to design the structures so that they
length of the same and the lateral stiffness of the structure is
behave inelastically during strong ground shaking. Thus, it
increased. This also helps to transfer the wall load of the
is also interesting and necessary to examine the behaviour of
ground storey to the column. The same has been modeled by
the structural system in the inelastic range of loading
two-nodded frame elements. Further details of structural
accounting for the effect of soil–structure interaction.
idealization are available elsewhere [10,11].
Ductility demand and hysteretic energy demand are two
crucial parameters to measure the inelastic range response To analyze the inelastic range behaviour, structure has
of the load-resisting structural elements. Hence, an attempt been idealized as rigid diaphragm model with three degrees
has been made in the present paper to see the influence of of freedom at each floor level, two translations in two
soil–structure interaction on such demands. Idealized single mutually perpendicular directions and one in-plane rotation
storey systems with elasto-plastic material characteristics as shown in Fig. 1c. Mass is assumed to be concentrated at
has been analyzed under the ground motions mentioned the floor level and the load-resisting elements connecting
earlier. Such systems have been considered to rest on the floors contribute to the stiffness only. In domestic
different representative soil medium. Outcome of such regular buildings, load-resisting structural members are
endeavour points out the need of accounting for the effect of often distributed over its plan uniformly. Thus, in the
soil-flexibility for realistic assessment of the inelastic range present study, six element system [12] has been adopted to
behaviour of the structural system. represent such stiffness distribution (Fig. 1d). Fifty percent
of the total lateral stiffness has been distributed equally
1.1. Idealization of the system between the two edge elements, whilst the rest is assigned to
the middle element. Similar systems have been adopted in
1.1.1. Structural idealization many other previous studies perhaps because of its
Two nodded frame elements along with four nodded capability to represent realistic stiffness distribution
plate elements with appropriate dimensions obtained using [13,14]. A bilinear elasto-plastic hysteresis model has
standard design are used to model three-dimensional space been utilized to analyze the inelastic behaviour of the
frames. During seismic excitations, owing to the lateral structural system. Single storey systems with various
loading at floor levels, building frames experience in-plane periods representative of one, two and three storey building
lateral sway deformation parallel to the direction of the frames have been considered. Strength has been attributed,
force. The brick in-fill within the panel tends to resist this in all cases, in proportion to the stiffness considering a
deformation offering enough stiffness against the shortening feasible range of variation of response reduction factor.
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 895

Fig. 1. Idealization of structure. (a) Typical low-rise building with brick in-fill, (b) Idealized representation of low-rise building used to analyze elastic range
behaviour. (c) Idealized representation of low-rise building used to analyze inelastic range behaviour. (d) Plan view showing stiffness distribution.

1.1.2. Idealization of Soil in principal horizontal directions and one in vertical,

Impedance functions associated with rigid massless together with the rotational springs about these mutually
foundations are utilized to incorporate the effect of soil– perpendicular axes have been attached below the footings
structure interaction in the analysis. Sizes of the footings are for buildings with isolated footings. Likewise, the entire
first determined on the basis of allowable bearing capacity grid foundation is conceived as a combination of a series of
obtained with various soil properties mentioned in Table 1 parallel foundation strips oriented in two mutually orthog-
[10,11]. The dimension of grid foundation has been arrived onal directions resting in the same plane. Hence, springs in
at on the basis of the guidelines prescribed in the literatures all six degrees of freedom have been attached to the
[15,16]. Mass of the foundation so designed has also been foundation strips at centre of gravity of the same. For better
properly incorporated in the analysis through consideration understanding, such idealization has been schematically
of consistent mass matrix. Three translational springs, two presented in Fig. 2a and b.
896 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Table 1
Details of soil parameters considered as used in [10,11]

Type of clay N value C (kN/m2) f (degree) gsat (kN/m3) Cc e0

Very soft 1 9.8 0.0 13.5 0.279 1.2
Soft 3 18.5 0.0 17.0 0.189 0.90
Medium 6 36.8 0.0 18.5 0.135 0.72
Stiff 12 73.5 0.0 19.4 0.12 0.67
Very stiff 22 147.0 0.0 19.8 0.099 0.60
Hard 30 220.0 0.0 21.0 0.093 0.58

N, C, f, gsat, Cc and e0 denote N value obtained from SPT test, cohesion value, internal friction angle, density in the saturated condition, compression index and
initial void ratio of soil, respectively.

Comprehensive research [17,18,19] has been carried With this idealization of the structure and subgrade
out to evaluate the stiffness of such springs. Closed form medium, effect of soil–structure interaction on low-rise
expressions for such spring stiffnesses as depicted in the building frames has been analyzed in details.
literature [19] have been furnished in Table 2 of the
present paper for the sake of convenience. The same has
been adopted in the present investigation as made in the
earlier studies [10,11]. Values of shear modulus (G) for 2. Ground motions considered
different types of soils have been evaluated using
the empirical relationship GZ120N0.8 t/ft2 [20] i.e. The effect of soil–structure interaction on elastic and
inelastic range responses of the building frames is studied
GZ12916692.48N0.8 MPa. Here, N is the number of
under three different types of ground motions. Two
blows to be applied in standard penetration test (SPT) of
uncorrelated artificially generated earthquake acceleration
the soil; and Poisson’s ratio (n) of soil has been assumed
histories of PGA 0.1 g are used in the analysis. An average
to be equal to 0.5 for all types of clay [21] to evaluate the
of the responses obtained from the same is utilized to
stiffness of the equivalent soil springs.
understand the general trend in variation. These ground
Variation of inertia force with the frequency of the
motions are consistent with design spectrum of an older
excitation force may conveniently be accounted through
version of Indian earthquake code [3]. The simulated
considering a frequency dependent behaviour of equival-
ground motions used in the present study are generated by a
ent soil springs [19,22]. However, such influence is very
procedure outlined in the literature [23]. This set of ground
difficult to incorporate in the analysis under real earth-
motions is referred to as spectrum consistent ground
quake due to the participation of the pulses with wide motions. The target design spectrum and the spectrum
frequency range in the same. Hence, such effect is not regenerated from one of the ground motions along with the
generally incorporated in the study. However, the present corresponding acceleration–time history as presented in
study, in the elastic range, examines the influence of such some other studies (e.g. Ref. [14]) are reproduced as Fig. 3a.
frequency dependent soil properties for some critical cases A close match between two spectra proves that these
with a view to achieving upper and lower bound spectrum consistent ground motions retain the character-
responses. Frequency dependent behaviour of equivalent istics intended through design spectrum. Seismic response
soil springs is conveniently accounted by multiplying the of the structures is also studied under north–south
stiffness of the soil springs with a suitable factor expressed component of El-Centro earthquake (Peknold version,
in terms of a0 Z uB=Vs [19,22], where u is the frequency 1940) having PGA 0.31 g available in the literature [24].
of the forcing function, B is the half of the width of the This earthquake data is referred to as El-Centro ground
footing and Vs is the shear wave velocity in soil medium. motion in the rest of the study. The response spectrum
a0 could be determined based on the dominant eigen generated from El-Centro ground motion and the corre-
frequencies of the structure or based on the dominant sponding acceleration–time history are shown in Fig. 3b.
frequency of the earthquake excitation. Consequently, the The comparison between Fig. 3a and b shows that the
present study includes the frequency dependent soil- spectrum generated from the El-Centro ground motion has a
flexibility at a0Z0.0 and 1.5 for building frames with flatter peak which continues to about 0.7 s, while for the
isolated footing. For buildings resting on grid foundation, spectrum consistent one, the narrower peak region continues
three critical cases at a0Z0.0, 0.3 and 1.5 are considered. only up to 0.4 s. Moreover, for the El-Centro ground
These cover the combinations of the highest and the motion, spectral ordinate decreases slowly to about 70% of
lowest possible range of variation in stiffnesses of its peak value at a period of 1 s, while rate of decrease is so
equivalent soil springs in different degrees of freedom sharp for the spectrum consistent artificial ground motion
and hence are expected to yield lower and upper that the spectral ordinate decreases to even less than 50% of
boundaries of response. its peak value at a period of 1 s. This clearly points out that
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 897

Fig. 2. Idealization of foundation system. (a) Typical layout of idealized grid foundation system in plan showing spring locations. (b) Arrangement at a typical
column-grid and equivalent soil spring junction idealized in the study.

El-Centro ground motion has stronger domination of short ground motions consisting of large duration pulses may
period pulses of less than 1 s as compared to the spectrum often result in crucial response. These near-fault motions
consistent ground motions considered. In addition to these may be considered to have behaviour like a large single
two types of ground motions, the effect of soil–structure pulse having very less number of zero crossings. For this
interaction on the building frames is also studied under type of ground motions, the ratio of the lateral natural period
idealized near-fault ground motions. This is because a few (Tx) of the building frames to the duration (T1) of these
recent investigations [25–27] point out that the near-fault pulses is found to be the most crucial parameter to influence
898 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Table 2
Expressions for stiffnesses of equivalent springs along various degrees of freedom as presented elsewhere [19] and used in [10,11]

Degrees of freedom Stiffness of equivalent soil spring

Vertical [2GL/(1Kn)](0.73C1.54c0.75) with cZAb/4L2
Horizontal (lateral direction) [2GL/(2Kn)](2C2.50c0.85) with cZAb/4L2
Horizontal (longitudinal direction) [2GL/(2Kn)](2C2.50c0.85)K[0.2/(0.75Kn)]GL[1K(B/L)]
Rocking (about the longitudinal) [G/(1Kn)] I0.75
bx (L/B)
0.25
[2.4C0.5(B/L)]
Rocking (about the lateral) [3G/(1Kn)] Iby (L/B)0.15
0.75

Torsion 3.5G I0.75 0.4

bz (B/L) (Ibz/B )
4 0.2

Ab, area of the foundation considered; B and L, half-width and half-length of a rectangular foundation, respectively; Ibx, Iby, and Ibz, moment of inertia of the
foundation area with respect to longitudinal, lateral and vertical axes, respectively.

the responses. Large duration pulse having Tx/T1 ratio 0.05 the entire structure foundation-soil spring system instead of
is only considered in the present study as the same is an isolated foundation-equivalent soil spring system as
observed to be the most critical in other relevant studies [26, considered in the previous literatures [18,19,22]. Hence, 5%
28,29]. This type of ground motion consists of two distinctly of critical damping in each mode of vibration is considered
different nature of pulses, viz. fault-normal and fault- for all the cases in the present study. To analyze the inelastic
parallel motion. While fault-parallel ground motion has a range behaviour, the nonlinear equations of motions for the
net residual slip; the fault-normal motion has no residual structures have been solved in the time domain by
slip but there is a half-cycle displacement pulse, indicating Newmark’s b-g method with modified Newton–Raphson
momentary opening and closing of the earth in slip region. technique that ensures accuracy at each step and eliminates
Accordingly, the idealized form of the near-fault pulses cumulative error. Newmark’s parameters are chosen as
considered in the study is chosen following other studies bZ0.25 and gZ0.5 to achieve unconditional stability.
[26,28,29] and presented in Fig. 3c. This set of ground Sufficiently small time-step obtained through sample case
motions is referred to as near-fault motion in the rest of the studies (not presented) has been used to ensure convergence
study. Response under the two sets of near-fault motion is for each of the systems considered. Response, in each case,
averaged likewise the cases corresponding to the spectrum has been studied with and without considering the effect of
consistent ground motions to recognize the general trend. soil-flexibility. The variation in percentage change in base
shear and various inelastic range demands reflecting
damage of load-resisting structural elements are expressed
3. Method of analysis due to the variation of different influential parameters.

Finite element method is adopted to formulate the mass

and stiffness matrices for the building frames. Consistent 4. Results and discussions
mass matrix is used to make the formulation as accurate as
possible. Response under ground motions is obtained from 4.1. Elastic range response
step by step integration [24]. It is reasonable to consider 5%
of the critical damping for a reinforced concrete buildings at Seismic base shear may reflect the seismic lateral
fixed base condition. Soil damping is calculated following vulnerability in the elastic range and this is considered as
the guideline prescribed in the literatures [17,22] consider- one of the fundamental inputs for seismic design. Hence, this
ing the contribution of radiation and material damping for section presents the variations in base shear due to the effect
an isolated footing-soil spring vibrating system due to a of soil–structure interaction under three types of ground
feasible range of footing size. This shows that for such an motions considered for the class of building frames specified
isolated footing-soil spring system, the overall soil damping incorporating the effect of brick infill. The additional
is not more than about 5% of the critical damping for such stiffness due to brick infill makes the structure stiffer. Thus
system, if the frequency of exciting pulses is not very small. the overall stiffness of the structural system considerably gets
This is in line with the experimental damping ratio for lessened for the inclusion of soil flexibility through the
coupled sway-rocking of such isolated shallow/surface introduction of equivalent soil springs in series. This leads to
foundation (with embedment about half of its least lateral the appreciable change in response and the same has been
dimension) and equivalent soil spring system for a number presented graphically as a function of various influential
of cases reported in the literature [30]. Even the compu- parameters over a feasible range of their variations. Such
tational value of damping ratio as per Gazetas [19] does not change in response due to the effect of soil-flexibility
considerably exceed about 5% for the corresponding cases compared to the same at fixed-base condition by some
[30]. However, it may substantially be increased due to fraction expressed as percentage of the response at fixed-base
embedment [19]. Again, the effect of soil-damping will be condition indicates an increase for positive value of such
further reduced if the effect is considered with respect to quantity and decrease for negative one. The curves
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 899

Fig. 3. Ground motions used. (a) Spectrum of simulated ground motion, design spectrum of IS: 1893–1984 corresponding to 5% damping and acceleration–
time history as used elsewhere [12,13]. (b) Response spectrum corresponding to 5% damping and acceleration–time history of El-Centro earthquake, 1940
[24]. (c) Simulated near-fault ground motions in directions (i) parallel and (ii) normal to a strike-slip fault [26].

corresponding to the frames with tie beams at plinth level are 4.1.1. Effect of variation of clay
marked by the word ‘tie’, while those corresponding to the The change in base shear due to the effect of soil–
frames without tie beams are not marked. Similarly, the structure interaction is studied on 1, 2 and 4 storied building
variation curves for building frames resting on different soil frames with isolated footing each having 2 bays in two
types, viz. very soft, soft, medium, stiff and very stiff etc. are mutually perpendicular directions and also for a 4!4 bay 1
marked with the corresponding soil type. The ratio of column storey building frame. These building frames resting on
to beam stiffness is assumed as unity if not stated otherwise. isolated footing have been analyzed both with and without
900 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Fig. 4. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with isolated footing under spectrum consistent ground motion.

considering the effect of tie beam. The outcomes of these For buildings with grid foundation, 3 storey, 4 storey
analyses have been plotted as percentage change in base and 6 storey building frames each having 4 bays in two
shear versus ‘N’ value of different types of clay. Figs. 4 mutually perpendicular directions together with another
and 5 present the variation of base shear due to spectrum 6!6 bay 3 storey building frame have been analyzed both
consistent, El-Centro and near-fault ground motion, under spectrum consistent and El-Centro ground motions.
respectively. Fig. 4 shows that the maximum increase in To obtain the changes in base shear under near fault
base shear due to spectrum consistent ground motions is motion due to the changes in ‘N’ values, only the 4!4 bay
around 63% for 4!4 bay 1 storey building frame without tie 3 storey building frame is presented as this exhibits the
beams, while for frames with tie beams, the maximum maximum effect of soil–structure interaction. These
increase is merely in the order of 20% for the same building building frames are considered to be resting on soft,
frame. Correspondingly, from Fig. 5a, it is observed that the medium and stiff clay to perceive the trend in behaviour.
maximum increase in base shear due to El-Centro ground This type of foundation is little bit unrealistic for very soft
motion is about 70% for 2!2 bay 1 storey building frame clay and consequently uneconomic for very stiff clay and
without tie beams and around 30% for the same building hence not considered in the analysis. Detailed results of
frame with tie beams. The percentage increase in base shear such analysis have been plotted in Figs. 6 and 7a,b to
due to near fault motion is on the order of 15 and 27 for 2!2 obtain the changes in base shear due to spectrum
bay 1 storey building frame without and with tie beams, consistent, El-Centro and near fault ground motions,
respectively (Fig. 5b). Out of the exhaustive case studies, respectively. Response results corresponding to 4!4 bay
the response of 2!2 bay 1 storey building frame is only 4 storey, 4!4 bay 6 storey and 6!6 bay 3 storey systems
presented as this seems to exhibit the representative trend under El-Centro ground motion, though computed, are not
and maximum effect due to soil–structure interaction under presented for the sake of brevity. The maximum increase in
El-Centro and near-fault ground motion. base shear due to spectrum consistent ground motion is
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 901

Fig. 5. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with isolated footing under (a) El-Centro and (b) near-fault ground motion,
respectively.

Fig. 6. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with grid foundation under spectrum consistent ground motion.
902 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Fig. 7. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with grid foundation under (a) El-Centro and (b) near-fault ground motion,
respectively.

around 20% for 4!4 bay 3 storey building frame without 4.1.2. Effect of variation of number of stories
tie beams, while for frames with tie beams, the maximum Out of a large number of cases studied, results for 2!2
change is merely in the order of 12% (Fig. 6). For bay building frame with isolated footing are presented here
El-Centro ground motion, the corresponding maximum to show the trend of variation with change in the number of
percentage increases are 38 and 3 for building frames stories. For building frames with isolated footings, the
without and with tie beam, respectively (Fig. 7a). The variation of percentage change in base shear due to
corresponding changes in base shear due to near fault spectrum consistent ground motion is presented in Fig. 8a,
motion are very small (Fig. 7b). The frequency of the while Fig. 8b exhibits the same under El-Centro ground
pulses in this type of ground motion is too small as motion. It is observed that a maximum of 23% increase in
compared to the frequency of the low-rise buildings. Thus, base shear may occur due to the variation of number of
the tuning between excitation pulse and the natural stories under spectrum consistent ground motion while for
frequency is very less. This explains the marginal effect El-Centro ground motion, the similar increase is around
exhibited by the building frames resting on both isolated as 70%. Fig. 9a and b exhibit variation of percentage changes
well as grid foundation due to soil-flexibility. Hence, while in base shear due to spectrum consistent and El-Centro
studying the effect of other influential parameters on the ground motions, respectively as a function of number of
change in response due to the effect of soil–structure stories for buildings with grid foundations. It is observed
interaction, this ground motion is not used further, in that the increase in base shear for spectrum consistent
general. ground motion may vary from 18% to 2% for frames
The results presented in the graphical form clearly point without ties and from 10% to even less than 0% for frames
out the significance of considering the effect of soil- with ties due to variation of number of stories in building
flexibility while calculating the base shear for particular frames with grid foundation. On the other hand, such
building frames under particular ground motions irrespec- quantity, under El-Centro ground motion, may experience
tive of the foundation type. Figs. 4–5 and 6–7 exhibit the an increase of about 40% and a decrease of around 20% for
gradually diminishing effect of soil–structure interaction building frames with tie beams.
with increasing hardness of soil for the building frames Figures clearly indicate that the effect of soil–structure
resting on isolated and grid foundation, respectively in interaction on the change in base shear generally decreases
maximum number of cases. Both the buildings with isolated with increase in number of stories in the building frame.
as well as grid foundations exhibit larger increase in base With the increase in number of storey, the building frame
shear under El-Centro ground motion than that under itself becomes relatively flexible having a lesser stiffness
spectrum consistent artificial ground motion. This may be, compared to a similar building frame with lesser number of
perhaps, due to the larger content of short period pulses with stories. If the equivalent soil springs of comparatively less
periods up to 1 s. The fundamental period of most of the stiffness is conceived to act in series with less stiffness of
low-rise buildings remains within this limit even after building having large number of stories, the resulting
lengthening due to soil–structure interaction effect and thus fractional decrease in overall stiffness is lesser. Further, the
the fundamental modes are more severely excited under buildings with larger number of stories have a greater
El-Centro ground motion. Introduction of tie beam gener- foundation size leading to a larger stiffness of the equivalent
ally reduces the change in seismic base shear. springs representing the soil behaviour. Thus, this factor
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 903

Fig. 8. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with isolated footing under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground motions,
respectively.

additionally makes the effect of soil–structure interaction in response of building frames incorporating soil-flexibility.
overall stiffness lesser in buildings with large number of The change in base shear due to the effect of soil–structure
stories. Hence, change in base shear due to the effect of soil– interaction is found to be the most amplified for buildings
structure interaction, is relatively lesser for buildings with with lesser number of stories. Hence, in the limited scope of
greater number of stories. Building frames with tie beams the paper, results corresponding to 1 storey building frame
exhibit the marginal effect of soil–structure interaction due with isolated footing and 3 storey frame with grid
to the similar reason. Consideration of tie beam at plinth foundation have been presented to exhibit the maximum
level enhances the flexibility of the structure and effectively possible effect of soil–structure interaction. For buildings
transfers the wall load to the footing. This causes an increase with isolated footings, number of bay has been shown to be
in the size of the foundation and hence effective soil varied as 1, 2 and 4. The percentage change in base shear as
stiffness. This renders the change in overall response a function of number of bay due to spectrum consistent
subdued. The maximum increase in base shear is found to and El-Centro ground motions is presented in Fig. 10a and b
be higher under El-Centro ground motion keeping harmony for building frames with isolated footings, while Fig. 11a
with the earlier observation. and b present the same for frames with grid foundations,
respectively. Fig. 10a and b show that the increase in base
4.1.3. Effect of variation of number of bays shear due to soil-flexibility compared to the fixed-base
Exhaustive research effort has been made to see the effect counterparts for frames with isolated footing may vary to
of variation of number of bays on the overall seismic the extent of about 40% and 30%, for the two ground

Fig. 9. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with grid foundation under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground motions,
respectively.
904 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Fig. 10. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with isolated footing under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground
motions, respectively.

motions, respectively, due to the change in number of bays percentage increase in base shear under spectrum consistent
over a range of 1–4. From Fig. 11a and b, it is observed that ground motion is around 15% (for frames without tie beam),
for building frames with grid foundation, similar increases while, under El-Centro ground motion, this is around 40%
in base shear for spectrum consistent and El-Centro ground due to the variation in the ratio of flexural stiffness of the
motions are around 15% and 20%, respectively. columns to that of beams for the building frame resting on
isolated footing. In the maximum cases, the effect is
4.1.4. Effect of ratio of column to beam stiffness relatively lesser for frames with tie beams. Similar variation
Ratio of column to beam stiffness is considered to vary is not more than around 30% for both spectrum consistent
over a practically feasible range of 0.25–4.0 maintaining the and El-Centro ground motions, respectively, for the
same beam stiffness in two mutually perpendicular direc- building frame resting on grid foundation (Fig. 13a and b,
tions. Out of exhaustive case studies, results corresponding respectively).
to 2!2 bay 2 storey building frame resting on isolated
footing have been presented to show the trend in behaviour 4.1.5. Effect of frequency on soil-flexibility
in Fig. 12a and b for the changes in base shear under To study the influence of the frequency of the excita-
spectrum consistent and El-Centro ground motions, respect- tion force on the overall behaviour of the soil–struc-
ively. The figures show that the maximum variation in ture-foundation system, the present study incorporates

Fig. 11. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with grid foundation under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground
motions, respectively.
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 905

Fig. 12. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with isolated footing under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground motion,
respectively.

the frequency dependent multiplier in the stiffnesses of the For buildings resting on grid foundations, the results
equivalent soil springs for the two critical cases, i.e. a0Z0.0 presented in Fig. 15a show that the maximum increase in
and 1.5 for buildings with isolated footings as mentioned base shear under the spectrum consistent ground motion for
earlier. The results of such study have been presented in a0Z0.3 is around 7% (frame with tie beam). For a0Z1.5,
Fig. 14a–c for building frames with isolated footings under this increase is around 15% (frame with tie beam) as against
spectrum consistent, El-Centro and near-fault motions, a peak increase of about 18% corresponding to a0Z0.0
respectively. The results corresponding to the frequency (frame without tie beam). But, from Fig. 15b, it is seen that
independent behaviour of soil i.e. a0Z0.0 have also been the maximum change in base shear under El-Centro ground
included for the sake of comparison. Maximum increase in motion is in the order of about 2% corresponding to a0Z0.3,
base shear for spectrum consistent ground motion is found and about 33% for a0Z1.5; while such increase is found to
to be in the order of about 17% and 12% for a0Z1.5 and 0.0, be in the order of 38% at a0Z0.0. Fig. 15c shows that no
respectively, while the same is observed to be around 53% such appreciable change occurs in case of near fault motion
and 60% for El-Centro, and around 20% and about 8% due to the incorporation of this effect of frequency for this
under near-fault motions, (Fig. 14a–c). type of building frame.

Fig. 13. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with grid foundation under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground motion,
respectively.
906 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Fig. 14. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for 2!2 bay 2 storey
building frames with isolated footing under (a) spectrum consistent,
(b) El-Centro and (c) near fault ground motions, respectively.
Fig. 15. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for 4!4 bay 3 storey
building frames with grid foundation under (a) spectrum consistent,
(b) El-Centro and (c) near fault ground motions, respectively.
This shows that the effect of frequency of the forcing
function may influence the seismic behaviour of the system, frequency is needed to be considered at least for important
moderately. Such influence seems sensitive to the proximity structures.
of the dominant frequency content of the ground motion to Earlier investigation [31] reveals that the effect of
the natural frequency of the system. Thus, such effect of differential settlement due to gravity loading can be
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 907

Fig. 16. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames with braces resting on isolated footing under spectrum consistent ground motion.

minimized in the building frames with isolated footings by

the addition of diagonal braces in all the peripheral panels of
the building frame [31]. However, the influence of the same
on the dynamic behaviour of the structure is needed to be
explored to adopt it in practice. The diameter of the steel
braces was adjusted in such a way that the axial rigidity i.e.
cross sectional area!modulus of elasticity is same as that of
the reinforced concrete columns. Change in base shear due
to the variation of soil (i.e. variation of N values) has been
studied for the building frames with diagonal braces in the
outer peripheral panels under all three ground motions.
However, in the limited scope of the paper, results
corresponding to 2!2 bay building frame under spectrum
consistent ground motion have been presented. Fig. 16
shows that the maximum percentage increase in base shear
due to various soil properties under spectrum consistent
ground motion is around 50% for 2!2 bay 1 storey building
frame without tie beam, while for the frame with tie beam, Fig. 17. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames
this value comes down to about 13%. Fig. 17 shows that the with braces resting on isolated footing under spectrum consistent ground
maximum percentage increase in base shear due to variation motion.
908 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

For structure with TxZ0.42 s, representative of three storey

system, cases corresponding to soft soil have been excluded
from practical consideration. Variation in inelastic demand
quantities has been observed over a feasible range of
response reduction factor Rm (ratio of elastic force demand
of a structural element to the strength provided) that
measures the extent of inelastic range excursion that a
structural element is expected to experience under a specified
seismic acceleration–time history. The study primarily
attempts to judge the adequacy of the assumption made in
conventional design to consider the structures fixed at base.
Hence, in the present analysis, strength design for the
structural members has generally been made assuming the
structures to be fixed at base. Then, inelastic demands
are computed with both fixed base as well as flexible base
assumption. The demands estimated with fixed base
assumptions are traditionally estimated ones that are
Fig. 18. Variation of percentage changes in base shear for building frames
with braces resting on isolated footing under spectrum consistent ground normally used in capacity design. On the other hand,
motion. the demands estimated from the consideration of flexible
base assumption are the ones expected to be exhibited by the
of number of stories is around 45%, while such increase is structures in reality. Comparison of the demands obtained in
found to be on the order of around 60% with the variation of these two ways helps to understand the consequence of
number of bays as observed from Fig. 18. A comparison of neglecting soil–structure interaction in estimating inelastic
these results to the corresponding cases without diagonal demands for capacity design. Further, limited investigation
braces in the peripherial panels presented in Figs. 4, 8a has also been made to see the influence of soil–structure
and 10a shows that the influence of such braces to alter the interaction on such damage quantities if the element
seismic response is marginal. This is perhaps due to the fact strengths are provided on the basis of elastic response
that the contribution of these braces to the lateral stiffness of obtained incorporating the effect of soil flexibility. Variation
the frames is marginal as compared to that of the original curves for such demands are plotted using lines with different
building frames with brick infill walls represented by symbols annotated below the plots and the results are
compression only diagonal braces. attempted to be interpreted physically.

4.2. Inelastic range response 4.2.1. Ductility demand

Ductility demand expressed as the maximum strain
Low-rise buildings may often experience inelastic range (including plastic) that a structural member undergoes
vibration under moderately strong earthquakes. Thus normalized by the yield strain of the same reflects
inelastic range behaviour of such structure is also of the demand for damage accommodating potential of
paramount importance from practical viewpoint. Thus structural component for survival without collapse but with
attempts have been made to offer useful insight to such plastic deformation or damage. Fig. 19a and b present the
behaviour through limited, yet representative, case studies. variation of such demand with the variation of response
Elastic range analysis primarily deals with the deformation reduction factor Rm for structures resting on different types of
quantities, whereas; in the inelastic range analysis, damage is soils under spectrum consistent and El-Centro ground
the key concern. Such damage is generally measured in terms motions, respectively. It is observed that such demand, as
of ductility demand and more precisely through hysteretic expected, generally increases with increasing Rm Fig. 19a
energy demand of load-resisting structural elements. Endea- shows, due to spectrum consistent ground motion, a
vour has been made in the present section to see the influence maximum increase of about 125% in ductility demand
of soil–structure interaction on such quantities using simple (excluding a sporadic increase of more than 700% at Rm Z 4
idealized single storey system. Three such single storey for structure with TxZ0.31 s on medium soil) is observed for
systems have been considered having fundamental lateral system with TxZ0.18 s resting on medium soil compared to
natural periods (Tx) of 0.18, 0.31 and 0.42 s at fixed-base its fixed base counterpart. A maximum demand of about
condition representative of typical one, two and three storey 103% is exhibited by the same structure resting on stiff soil
structures, respectively. These characteristic lateral periods under El-Centro ground motion (Fig. 19b). Such quantity is
are arrived at on the basis of the expression for lateral period observed to vary in the range of about 1–20 and 1–12 under
provided in the recent version of the Indian Standard Code spectrum consistent and El-Centro ground motions, respect-
for earthquake resistant structures [32]. Structures are ively due to the variation of response reduction factor. From
considered to rest on soft, medium and stiff soils, in general. close observation of the overall behaviour, it is evident that
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 909

Fig. 19. Variation of ductility demand for building frames under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground motions, respectively for various lateral
natural period Tx (strength design made without SSI effect).

the influence of soil flexibility considerably increases the reversals. Lengthening of lateral natural period due to soil-
demand. For low-rise buildings with lateral natural period in flexibility is not appreciable compared to the pulse duration
the short period ascending region of the response spectrum, and hence the influence of soil–structure interaction hardly
lengthening in period due to soil flexibility enhances the alters such response. However, such an immense amplifica-
elastic force response resulting in an increase in the strength tion in response is of remote possibility in practice as the
demand of the system. Thus effectively response reduction same may only be expected if the origin of the seismic
factor increases due to the effect of soil-flexibility than what excitation is very close to the foundation of a low-rise
is actually provided in the design on the basis of fixed-base building frame.
consideration. This expectedly allows additional inelastic
excursion of the load-resisting structural members and hence
4.2.2. Hysteretic energy demand
increases the inelastic demand. A limited effort has also been
It is conventional to index the damage of the structures in
made to see such changes under idealized large duration
terms of ductility demand. However, such quantity
near-fault ground motion. The idealized near-fault ground
considers only the maximum displacement that the load-
motion used in analyzing elastic range behaviour has again
resisting members undergo in its entire history. Obviously,
been used for the same. Results of the same corresponding to
TxZ0.31 s system is only presented in the sample form in Table 3
Ductility demand of idealized single storey structure with TxZ0.31 s under
Table 3. This shows that the demand quantity peaks
idealized near-fault ground motion at Tx/T1Z0.05
considerably even at fixed-base condition and the influence
of soil–structure interaction in further altering the response is Rm Fixed base Soft Medium Stiff
insignificant. Such increase is perhaps due to the large 1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8
duration of the pulse compared to the natural period of the 2 103.5 106.8 102.6 101.2
4 1676.3 1682.5 1677.4 1684.9
system. Structures, under this kind of loading, experience
8 5179.3 5196.8 5190.8 5187.1
sufficient plastic range deformation with very few load
910 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

Fig. 20. Variation of normalized hysteresis energy ductility demand (NHEDD) for building frames under (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro ground
motions, respectively for various lateral natural period Tx (strength design made without SSI effect).

under reversible type loading in the inelastic range, this with TxZ0.31 s resting on medium soil due to spectrum
parameter cannot account for the accumulated plastic strain consistent ground motion when compared to the response of
in all cycles of loading. In this context, a parameter termed the same system with fixed base. Similar increase in
as normalized hysteretic energy ductility demand response in the order of around 138% is exhibited by the
(NHEDD), similar to ductility demand, has been proposed same system under El-Centro ground motion when it is
[33] to be considered as a more meaningful parameter. This considered to rest on soft soil. Similar quantity has
is expressed as the energy dissipated by the element during experienced a variation ranging from around 1 to 100 and
all inelastic cycles normalized to twice the energy absorbed 1 to 90 due to the variation of Rm over the domain considered
at the first yield plus one. Physically, this implies the ratio under spectrum consistent and El-Centro ground motions,
between the equivalent displacement needed to dissipate the respectively. Considerable increase in such demand is
same amount of energy as that in the original under a exhibited under near fault motion as furnished in Table 4
monotonically increasing load and the yield displacement for the system with TxZ0.31 s. Likewise the earlier
equal to that of the original. This parameter has been used in observation, the influence of soil–structure interaction to
a few recent studies [28,34,35] perhaps because of its more alter such demand under near-fault motion is observed to be
meaningful implications. negligible.
Variation in NHEDD for the load-resisting structural
Table 4
elements has been presented as a function of response NHEDD for idealized single storey structure with TxZ0.31 s under
reduction factor due to spectrum consistent and El-Centro idealized near-fault ground motion at Tx/T1Z0.05
ground motions in Fig. 20a and b, respectively. Results show
Rm Fixed base Soft Medium Stiff
a consistently increasing trend in response with increasing
Rm and enhanced demand due to the incorporation of the 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
effect of soil–structure interaction. This observation 2 188.1 195.9 194.0 194.4
4 2560.9 2590.2 2575.6 2586.9
conforms to the same made in terms of ductility demand. 8 7101.0 7158.3 7138.1 7143.0
A maximum increase of about 160% is observed for systems
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 911

Fig. 21. Variation of ductility demand for building frames under simulated spectrum consistent ground motion for various lateral natural period Tx (strength
design made with SSI effect).

Thus the present investigation crystallizes the fact that the effect of soil-flexibility (Figs. 19a, 20a), in general,
the effect of soil–structure interaction may considerably exhibits a lesser demand for the former and the demands are
enhance the possibility of damage for low-rise building virtually magnified in the latter. This may be attributed to
frames designed as per usual practice, i.e. assuming building under estimation of the strength quantities in the process of
frames fixed at the bases. However, it is interesting to design ignoring soil-flexibility. For low-rise buildings, since
quantify such demands indicating the extent of damage at soil–structure interaction increases the design force, higher
various levels of Rm for structures designed incorporating the response reduction factor is allowed in reality for the
influence of soil–structure interaction in the strength design structures designed from fixed-base assumption through an
itself. Variation of ductility demand and NHEDD for the underestimation of elastic force demand. Thus consideration
idealized single storey systems so designed are presented in of soil–structure interaction effect in design seems impera-
Figs. 21 and 22, respectively. Such variation is presented tive in order to avoid an unsafe design at least for low-rise
due to spectrum consistent ground motion only to represent buildings. This observation is also in keeping with the
the trend indicating results. Results depict that a maximum response obtained in the elastic range.
variation in the range of 1–12 and 1–60 may be expected in
ductility and energy demand as against a variation of 1–20
and 1–100 in the same for systems designed without soil- 5. Implication of the results
flexibility due to variation of Rm over the same domain. A
comparison of these results with those obtained for the Thus the present investigation reveals that the effect of
corresponding systems designed without accounting for soil–structure interaction may increase the seismic response

Fig. 22. Variation of normalized hysteresis energy ductility demand (NHEDD) for building frames under simulated spectrum consistent ground motion for
various lateral natural period Tx (strength design made with SSI effect).
912 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

of structures at least for low-rise buildings. However, this

observation may appear to lack conformity with the general
recommendation of ATC03 [36] and the conventional belief
regarding the influence of the same. Thus, to have a better
insight into the physics of the problem, a simple single
storey plane frame (SDOF system) having various lateral
natural periods has been analyzed over a feasible range of
variation of subgrade condition [10,11]. Spectrum compa-
tible synthetic ground motion and El-Centro ground motion
have been used in the analysis. Variation of change in base
shear due to the incorporation of soil-flexibility as compared
to the same obtained at fixed-base condition expressed as
a percentage of such response for systems at fixed-base
condition has been plotted. A set of such curves are drawn
for various lateral natural periods of the systems at fixed-
base condition (Tfix) considering ratio of the lateral natural
period at flexible base condition (Tssi) and the same at fixed-
base condition (Tfix) as the independent variable. Fig. 23a
presents such variation due to spectrum consistent ground
motion, while similar variation under El-Centro ground
motion is shown in Fig. 23b. Curves corresponding to the
fixed base lateral period in the short period range (up to
0.3 s), those corresponding to medium period range (more
than 0.3 s but less than 0.6 s) and those corresponding to
long period range (greater than 0.6 s) are drawn by firm and
two different types of dotted lines, respectively, for easy
identification. Results show that percentage change in base
shear is generally positive indicating an increase in response
for structures having Tfix up to 0.3 s such changes are
generally negative implying a decrease in response for all
other cases except some marginal increase for systems
having Tfix equal to 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 s. Thus, seismic
response is generally expected to experience an increase for
systems having short period (0.1–0.3 s) while for systems
with large period (above 0.6 s), response due to soil–
structure interaction may decrease. Influence of soil–
structure interaction for systems with medium period
(0.3 s!T fix!0.6 s) may undergo occasional change
(increase or decrease) or no change at all. Such response
scenario may be explained in the light of the change in
spectral acceleration ordinate of the response spectra with
change in lateral natural period. In the short period range,
such ordinate generally increases; while the same exhibits a
decrease in the long period region and very little or no
change in the medium period range. Such observation
Fig. 23. Variation in base shear for single storey plane frame with various
regarding the nature of such interaction is in concurrence lateral natural periods due to (a) spectrum consistent and (b) El-Centro
with the comment made in the commentary on soil– ground motions, respectively.
structure interaction of ATC03 under the heading ‘nature of
interaction effects’ in page 383 [36]. The same asserts that soil–structure interaction may increase seismic response of
‘depending on the characteristics of the structure and the such structures.
ground motion under consideration, soil–structure inter-
action may increase, decrease, or have no effect on the 6. Conclusions
magnitudes of the maximum forces induced in the structure
itself’. In this context, the present effort raises a serious The present study attempts to assess the impact of soil–
concern for low-rise building systems as the influence of structure interaction on regulating the design force
 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914 913

quantities under seismic loading both in elastic and inelastic Such a study also helps to identify the category of worstly
range of vibration for low-rise buildings. The results of the influenced building frames. These may help to formulate
study may lead to the following broad conclusions: improved design guideline for low-rise building frames
accounting for the effect of soil–structure interaction.
1. The study shows that the effect of soil–structure Similar increase in elastic range response (computed by
interaction may play a significant role to increase the CQC method) of low-rise structures on raft footings is
seismic base shear of low-rise building frames. However, observed elsewhere [11]. Further, the limited effort to
seismic response generally decreases due to the influence analyze the inelastic behaviour of low-rise building frame
of soil–structure interaction for medium to high rise with soil–structure interaction indicating a possibility of
buildings. increasing inelastic demands prepares the background and
2. The study also shows that this effect may strongly be indicates the immediate need for a rigorous analysis on the
influenced by the frequency content of the earthquake same. Demand quantities are expected to be further
ground motion. The ground motions dominated by short aggravated for R/C structures that undergo sufficient
period pulses (period less than 1 s) are found to cause a strength and stiffness degradation in the inelastic range. A
larger increase in response due to the effect of soil– detailed investigation on the same to frame improved design
structure interaction. On the other hand, the near-fault guidelines may be of ample interest in future course of
motion of large duration causes a small increase in work. Such a course of study is planned to be undertaken up
response as the frequency content of the ground motion by authors and may be reported as and when completed.
is, in general, largely apart from the system frequency
with or without considering the effect of soil–structure
interaction. Acknowledgements
3. Increase in seismic base shear due to soil flexibility
generally decreases with increasing hardness of soil and The authors gratefully acknowledge the support rendered
increasing number of stories. Introduction of tie beam by a Major Research Project sanctioned by University Grants
also lessens the possibility of increasing base shear due Commission, Government of India [No. F. 14-13/2000
to soil–structure interaction. (SR-I)] towards the successful completion of the present work.
4. The effect of soil–structure interaction on the change in
base shear appreciably alters due to the change in column
to beam stiffness ratio, irrespective of the type of ground References
motions, building frames and types of foundations.
Certain increases in base shear have been observed [1] Roy R, Dutta SC. Effect of soil-structure interaction on dynamic
with change in number of bays in the building frames. On behaviour of building frames on grid foundations. Structural
the other hand, excitation frequency of the forcing Engineering Convention (SEC 2001) Proceedings, Roorkee, India
function may moderately influence the seismic charac- 2001;694–703.
[2] Roy R, Dutta SC, Moitra D. Effect of soil-structure interaction on
teristics of the buildings. dynamic behaviour of building frames on isolated footings. National
5. Inelastic range demands of lateral load resisting Symposium on Advances in Structural Dynamics and Design
structural elements may experience considerable (ASDD), Proceedings, Chennai, India 2001;579–86.
increase due to the effect of soil–structure interaction. [3] Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.
If the strength design of a system is carried out on the New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; IS 1893–1984.
[4] Hall JF. Parameter study of the response of moment-resisting steel
basis of fixed base assumption, then relatively lower frame buildings to near-source ground motions. EERL 95-08,
strength is provided as it demands due to its interaction California, Institute of Technology, Pasadena, December, 1995.
with soil. The inelastic demands of such systems may be [5] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NEHRP rec-
considerably more due to the effect of soil flexibility than ommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for
what is computed with fixed base assumption. However, new buildings. Part II: Commentary. Report No. FEMA-222,
Washington DC, USA.
these inelastic demands are only marginally influenced [6] Smith BS. Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. J Struct Eng, ASCE
due to the effect of soil–structure interaction, under near- 1962;88(ST6):183–99.
fault motion. [7] Smith BS, Carter C. A method of analysis of infilled frames.
6. If the effect of soil flexibility is incorporated in the Institution of Civil Engineers, Proceedings 1969;44:31–48.
strength design, then the increased strength provided [8] Dowrick DJ. Earthquake resistant design: a manual for engineers and
architects. New York: Wiley; 1977.
through the interaction effect in short period systems [9] Curtin WG, Shaw G, Beck JK. Design of reinforced and prestressed
may help to reduce the inelastic range demands of the masonry. Thomas Telford House, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 9XF:
interactive systems considerably. Thomas Telford Ltd; 1988.
[10] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC. Assessing lateral period of building frames
The study, as a whole, identifies the influential incorporating soil-flexibility. J Sound Vib 2004;269(3–5):795–821.
[11] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC, Dasgupta S. Effect of soil-flexibility on
parameters, which can regulate the effect of soil–structure dynamic behaviour of building frames on raft foundation. J Sound Vib
interaction on the change in base shear of building frames. 2004;274:111–35.
914 S.C. Dutta et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 893–914

[12] Dutta SC. Effect of strength deterioration on inelastic seismic [24] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structure. New Delhi, India: Prentice Hall;
torsional behaviour of asymmetric RC buildings. Build Environ 1998.
2001;36(10):1109–18. [25] Goel R, Chopra AK. Inelastic seismic response of one-storey,
[13] Dutta SC, Das PK. Inelastic seismic response of code-designed asymmetric plan systems: effect of stiffness and strength distribution.
reinforced concrete asymmetric buildings with strength degradation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1990;19(7):949–70.
Eng Struct 2002;24:1295–314. [26] Murty CVR, Hall JF. Earthquake collapse analysis of steel frames.
[14] Das PK. Effect of coupled lateral torsional vibration on inelastic Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1994;23(11):1199–218.
seismic behaviour of R/c buildings with uni-directional and bi-direc- [27] Naeim F. On seismic design implications of 1994 Northridge
tional asymmetry. PhD Thesis 2004. Department of Applied earthquake records. Earthquake Spectra 1995;11(1):91–109.
Mechanics, Bengal Engineering College, Howrah, India 2004. [28] Dutta SC, Das PK. Validity and applicability of two simple hysteresis
[15] ACI Committee 436 (De Simone SV. (Ch)). Suggested design model to assess progressive seismic damage in RC asymmetric
procedures for combined footings and mats. J Am Concr Inst 1966; buildings. J Sound Vib 2002;257(4):753–77.
63(10):1041–57. [29] Das PK, Dutta SC. Effect of strength and stiffness deterioration on
seismic behaviour of asymmetric RC buildings. Int J Appl Mech Eng
[16] ACI Committee 336 (Ulrich J. (Ch)). Suggested analysis and design
2002;7(2):527–64.
procedures for combined footings and mats. J Am Concr Inst 1988;
[30] Gazetas G, Stokoe II KH. Free vibration of embedded foundations:
86(1):304–24.
theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1991;117(9):
[17] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped
1382–401.
foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1986;112(2):109–35.
[31] Roy R, Dutta SC. Differential settlement among isolated footings of
[18] Dobry R, Gazetas G, Stokoe II KH. namic response of arbitrarily
building frames: the problem, its estimation and possible measures.
shaped foundations: experimental verifications. J Geotech Eng, ASCE Int J Appl Mech Eng 2001;6(1):165–286.
1986;112(2):136–54. [32] Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures,
[19] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; IS 1893-2002.
embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1991;117(9):1363–81. [33] Mahin SA, Bertero VV. An evaluation of inelastic seismic design
[20] Ohsaki Y, Iwasaki R. On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson’s ratio of spectra. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1981;107:1777–95.
soil deposits. Soils Found 1973;13(4). [34] Chandler AM, Correnza JC, Hutchinson GL. Seismic torsional
[21] Determination of dynamic properties of soil-method of test. New provisions: influence on element energy dissipation. J Struct Eng,
Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; IS: 5249-1992. ASCE 1996;122(5):494–500.
[22] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design Civil engineering series: [35] Goel RK. Seismic response of asymmetric systems: energy based
McGraw-Hill International Editions, 5th ed. approach. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1997;107:1444–53.
[23] Khan MR. Improved method of generation of artificial time histories, [36] Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for
rich in all frequencies. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1987;15(8):985–92. buildings, Applied Technology Council, NSF and NBS; 1982.