1 

CHAPTER C19 SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION FOR SEISMIC DESIGN

2 

3  C19.1 GENERAL

4  In an earthquake, the shaking is transmitted up through the structure from the geologic media
5  underlying and surrounding the foundation. The response of a structure to earthquake shaking is
6  affected by interactions among three linked systems: the structure, the foundation, and the

LY
7  geologic media underlying and surrounding the foundation. The analysis procedures in Chapters
8  12 and 15 idealize the response of the structure by applying forces to the structure, which is

N
9  typically assumed to have a fixed base at the foundation–soil interface. In some cases, the

O
10  flexibility of the foundation elements and underlying soils is included in the analysis model. The
11  forces that are applied to the structure are devised based on parameters representing free-field
12  n
ground motions. The term free-field refers to motions not affected by structural vibrations or the
io
13  foundation characteristics of the specific structure and represents the condition for which the
at
14  design spectrum is derived using the procedures given in Chapter 11 and Chapter 21. In most
15  cases, however, the motions at the foundation that are imparted to the structure are different from
m

16  the free-field motions. This difference is caused by the effects of the interaction of the structure
or

17  and the geologic media. A seismic soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis evaluates the
collective response of these systems to a specified free-field ground motion.
nf

18 

SSI effects are absent for the theoretical condition of rigid geologic media, which is typical of
rI

19 
20  analytical models of structures. Accordingly, SSI effects reflect the differences between the
Fo

21  actual response of the structure and the response for the theoretical, rigid base condition.
22  Visualized within this context, the two following SSI effects can significantly affect the response
23  of structures:

24  1. Foundation Deformations. Flexural, axial, and shear deformations of foundation

25  elements occur as a result of loads applied by the superstructure and the supporting
26  geologic media. Additionally, the underlying geologic media deforms because of loads
27  from the foundations. Such deformations represent the seismic demand for which

1 
 
 1  foundation components should be designed. These deformations can also significantly
2  affect the overall system behavior, especially with respect to damping.
3  2. Inertial SSI Effects. Inertia developed in a vibrating structure gives rise to base shear,
4  moment, and torsional excitation, and, in turn, these loads cause displacements and
5  rotations of the foundation relative to the free-field displacement. These relative
6  displacements and rotations are only possible because of flexibility in the soil–foundation
7  system, which can significantly contribute to the overall structural flexibility in some
8  cases. Moreover, the relative foundation free-field motions give rise to energy dissipation

LY
9  via radiation damping (i.e., damping associated with wave propagation into the ground
10  away from the foundation, which acts as the wave source) and hysteretic soil damping,

N
11  and this energy dissipation can significantly affect the overall damping of the soil–
12  foundation–structure system. Because these effects are rooted in the structural inertia,

O
13  they are referred to as inertial interaction effects.
14 
n
3. Kinematic SSI Effects. Kinematic SSI results from the presence of foundation elements
io
15  on or in soil that are much stiffer than the surrounding soil. This difference in stiffness
16  causes foundation motions to deviate from free-field motion as a result of base slab
at

17  averaging and embedment effects.

m

18  Chapter 19 addresses both types of SSI effects. Procedures for calculating kinematic and inertial
SSI effects were taken from recommendations in NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012). Further
or

19 
20  discussion of SSI effects can be found in this NIST document and some of the references cited
nf

21  therein.
rI

22  Substantial revisions have been made to Chapter 19 in this edition of ASCE 7. They include
(1) the introduction of formulas for the stiffness and damping of rectangular foundations,
Fo

23 
24  (2) revisions to the formulas for the reduction of base shear caused by SSI, (3) reformulation of
25  the effective damping ratio of the SSI system, (4) introduction of an effective period lengthening
26  ratio, which appears in the formula for the effective damping ratio of the SSI system, and which
27  depends on the expected structural ductility demand, and (5) the introduction of kinematic SSI
28  provisions. Most of these revisions come from the NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) report on
29  SSI. However, the basic model of the inertial SSI system has remained the same since SSI
30  provisions were first introduced in the ATC 3-06 report (ATC 1978).

2 
 
 1  The first effect, foundation deformation, is addressed by explicitly requiring the design
2  professional to incorporate the deformation characteristics of the foundation into their analysis
3  model. Including foundation deformations is essential for the understanding of soil–structure
4  interaction (SSI). Therefore, the flexibility of the foundation must be modeled to capture the
5  translational and rotational movement of the structure at the soil–foundation interface.

6  For the linear procedures, this requirement to model the flexibility of the foundation and soil
7  means that springs should be placed in the model to approximate the effective linear stiffness of
8  the deformations of the underlying geologic media and the foundation elements. This could be

LY
9  done by placing isolated spring elements under the columns and walls, by explicitly modeling
10  the foundation elements and geologic media in the mathematical model, or some combination of

N
11  the two. For the response history procedure, this would mean that, in addition to the stiffness of

O
12  the subsurface media and foundation elements, the nonlinear parameters of those materials
13  would be incorporated into the analytical model. Because of the uncertainty in estimating the
14  n
stiffness and deformation capacity of geologic media, upper and lower bound estimates of the
io
15  properties should be used and the condition that produces the more conservative change in
at
16  response parameters from a fixed-base structure must be used.
m

17  Inertial interaction effects are addressed through the consideration of foundation damping.
18  Inertial interaction in structures tends to be important for stiff structural systems such as shear
or

19  walls and braced frames, particularly where the foundation soil is relatively soft. The provisions
nf

20  provide a method for estimating radiation damping and soil hysteretic damping.
rI

21  The two main kinematic interaction effects are included in these provisions: base slab averaging
22  and embedment effects. The kinematic interaction effects cause the motion input into the
Fo

23  structure to be different from the free-field motions. The provisions provide a means by which a
24  free-field, site-specific response spectrum can be modified to account for these kinematic
25  interaction effects to produce a foundation-input spectrum.

26  Site classes A and B are excluded from Chapter 19 because the dynamic interaction between
27  structures and rock is minimal and based on theory. Furthermore, there are no empirical data to
28  indicate otherwise.

3 
 
 1  Section 19.1.1 prohibits using the cap of Ss included in Section 12.8.1.3 because of the belief

2  that structures meeting the requirements of that section have performed satisfactorily in past

3  earthquakes, partially because of SSI effects. Taking advantage of that predetermined cap on Ss ,

4  and then subsequently reducing the base shear caused by SSI effects, may therefore amount to
5  double-counting the SSI effects.

6  Section 19.1.1 prohibits the reduction in foundation overturning in Section 12.13.4 with SSI
7  effects because there is not adequate research to demonstrate that the response parameter

LY
8  reductions are additive. The reduction in overturning in Section 12.13.4 is based on the
9  equivalent lateral force procedure, and to a lesser extent, the modal response spectrum procedure,

N
10  potentially over predicting the overturning moments in multi-degree-of-freedom systems. The

O
11  equations that predict the radiation damping reductions are based on single-degree-of-freedom
12  models on elastic media, creating a very specific two-degree-of-freedom system. In these
13 
n
models, the multi-degree-of-freedom building is idealized as an equivalent single-degree-of-
io
14  freedom model. The idealization does not take into account the overturning reduction, so there is
no basis for further response parameter reductions. Therefore, the committee chose to prohibit
at
15 
16  the direct combination of the two reductions until further research is conducted.
m

17  C19.2 SSI ADJUSTED STRUCTURAL DEMANDS

or

When the equivalent lateral force procedure is used, the equivalent lateral force is computed
nf

18 
19  using the period of the flexible base structure and is modified for the SSI system damping. For
rI

20  the modal analysis procedure, a response spectrum, which has been modified for the SSI system
Fo

21  damping and then divided by ( R / Ie ), is input into the mathematical model. The lower bound

22  limit on the design base shear based on the equivalent lateral force procedures per
23  Section 12.9.1.4 still applies, but the equivalent lateral force base shear modified to account for
24  SSI effects replaces the base shear for the fixed-base case.

25  For both the equivalent lateral force and response spectrum procedures, the total reduction
26  caused by SSI effects is limited to a percentage of the base shear, determined in accordance with
27  Section 12.8.1, which varies based on the R factor. This limitation on potential reductions
28  caused by SSI reflects the limited understanding of how the effects of SSI interact with the R
4 
 
 1  factor. All of the SSI effects presented herein are based on theoretical linear elastic models of the
2  structure and geologic media. That is why reductions of 30% are permitted for R  3 or less. It is
3  felt that those systems exhibit limited inelastic response and therefore, a larger reduction in the
4  design force caused by SSI should be permitted. For higher R factor systems, where significant
5  damping caused by structural yielding is expected, the contribution of foundation damping is
6  assumed to have little effect on the reduction of the response. Some reduction is permitted
7  because of (1) an assumed period lengthening resulting from the incorporation of base flexibility,
8  (2) potential reduction in mass participation in the fundamental mode because two additional

LY
9  degrees of freedom are present caused by translation and rotation of the base, and (3) limited
10  foundation damping interacting with the structural damping.

N
11  Reductions to the response spectrum caused by the SSI system damping and kinematic SSI

O
12  effects are for the elastic 5% damped response spectrum typically provided to characterize free-
13  field motion. In addition, studies have indicated that there is a fair amount of uncertainty in the
14  n
amount of kinematic SSI when measured reductions between the free-field motion and the
io
15  foundation input motion are compared with the theoretical models (Stewart 2000).
at

16  Reductions for kinematic SSI effects are not permitted for the equivalent lateral force and modal
m

17  response spectrum procedures. The equations for predicting the kinematic SSI effects are based
on modifications to the linear elastic response spectrum. Studies have not been performed to
or

18 
19  verify if they are similarly valid for inelastic response spectra, on which the R factor procedures
nf

20  are based. Additionally, the amount of the reduction for kinematic SSI effects is dependent on
rI

21  the period of the structure, with the greatest modifications occurring in the short period range.
22  Because the fundamental periods of most structures lengthen as they yield, what would
Fo

23  potentially be a significant reduction at the initial elastic period may become a smaller reduction
24  as the structure yields. Without an understanding of how the period may lengthen in the
25  equivalent lateral force or modal response spectrum procedures, there is a potential for a user to
26  overestimate the reduction in the response parameters caused by kinematic SSI effects. Thus,
27  their use is not permitted.

28  All types of SSI effects are permitted to be considered in a response history analysis per
29  Chapter 16. If SSI effects are considered, the site-specific response spectrum should be used as
30  the target to which the acceleration histories are scaled. The requirement to use a site-specific
5 
 
 1  response spectrum was placed in the provisions because of the belief that it provided a more
2  realistic definition of the earthquake shaking than is provided by the design response spectrum

3  and MCER response spectrum in accordance with Sections 11.4.6 and 11.4.7. A more realistic

4  spectrum was required for proper consideration of SSI effects, particularly kinematic SSI effects.

5  The design response spectrum and MCER response spectrum, in accordance with

6  Sections 11.4.6 and 11.4.7, use predetermined factors to modify the probabilistic or deterministic
7  response spectrum for the soil conditions. These factors are sufficient for most design situations.
However, if SSI effects are to be considered and the response spectrum modified accordingly,

LY
8 
9  then more accurate representations of how the underlying geologic media alter the spectral
10  ordinates should be included before the spectrum is modified because of the SSI effects.

N
O
11  A site-specific response spectrum that includes the effects of SSI can be developed with explicit
12  consideration of SSI effects by modifying the spectrum developed for free-field motions through
13 
n
the use of the provisions in Sections 19.3 and 19.4. If the foundation damping is not specifically
io
14  modeled in the analytical model of the structure, the input response spectrum can include the
effects of foundation damping. Typically, the base slab averaging effect is not explicitly modeled
at
15 
16  in the development of a site-specific response spectrum and the provisions in Section 19.4.1 are
m

17  used to modify the free-field, site-specific response spectrum to obtain the foundation input
or

18  spectrum. Embedment effects can be modeled directly by developing the site-specific spectrum
19  at the foundation base level, as opposed to the ground surface. Alternatively, the site-specific
nf

20  spectrum for the free field can be developed at the ground level and the provisions of
rI

21  Section 19.4.2 can be used to adjust it to the depth corresponding to the base of foundation.
Fo

22  The limitations on the reductions from the site-specific, free-field spectrum to the foundation
23  input spectrum are based on several factors. The first is the scatter between measured ratios of
24  foundation input motion to free-field motion versus the ratios from theoretical models (Stewart
25  2000). The second is the inherent variability of the properties of the underlying geologic media
26  over the footprint of the structure. Whereas there is a requirement to bound the flexibility of the
27  soil and foundation springs, there are no corresponding bounding requirements applied to the
28  geologic media parameters used to compute the foundation damping and kinematic SSI. The last
29  factor is the aforementioned lack of research into the interaction between SSI effects and

6 
 
 1  yielding structures. Some studies have shown that there are reductions for most cases of SSI
2  when coupled with an R factor-based approach (Jarernprasert et al. 2013).

3  A limitation was placed on the maximum reduction for an SSI modified site-specific response
4  spectrum with respect to the response spectrum developed based on the USGS ground-motion
5  parameters and the site coefficients. This limitation is caused by similar concerns expressed in
6  Section C21.3 regarding the site-specific hazard studies generating unreasonably low response
7  spectra. There is a similar concern that combining SSI effects with site-specific ground motions
8  could significantly reduce the seismic demand from that based on the USGS ground-motion

LY
9  parameters and the site coefficients. However, it was recognized that these modifications are real
10  and the limit could be relaxed, but not eliminated, if there were (1) adequate peer review of the

N
11  site-specific seismic hazard analysis and the methods used to determine the reductions

O
12  attributable to SSI effects and (2) approval of the jurisdictional authority.

13 
n
Peer review would include, but not be limited to, the following:
io
14  1. Development of the site-specific response spectrum used to scale the ground motions;
at
15  2. Determination of foundation stiffness and damping, including the properties of the
16  underlying subsurface media used in the determination;
m

17  3. Confirmation that the base slab and first slab above the base are sufficiently rigid to allow
or

18  base slab averaging to occur, including verification that the base slab is detailed to act as
a diaphragm; and
nf

19 
20  4. Assumptions used in the development of the soil and radiation damping ratios.
rI

21  The SSI effects can be used in a response history analysis, per Chapter 16. Two options for the
modeling of the SSI are as follows:
Fo

22 

23  1. Create a nonlinear finite element (FE) model of the structure, foundation, and geologic
24  media. The mesh for the geologic media should extend to an appropriate depth and
25  horizontal distance away from the foundation with transmitting boundaries along the
26  sides to absorb outgoing seismic waves generated by the foundation. The motion should
27  be input at the base of the FE model and should propagate upward as shear waves. The
28  free-field response spectrum can be reduced for kinematic SSI only per the provisions in
29  Section 19.4, but embedment effects would not be allowed in the reduction because the

7 
 
 1  waves propagating up from the depth of the foundation to the surface would
2  automatically include kinematic effects of embedment.
3  2. Create a nonlinear finite element model of the structure and foundation, with springs and
4  dashpots attached to the perimeter walls and base of the foundation to account for the
5  soil–foundation interaction. Guidance on the development of dashpots can be found in
6  NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012). The free-field response spectrum can be reduced for
7  kinematic SSI per Section 19.4, but embedment effects may or may not be allowed in the
8  reduction depending on whether or not (i) the motion is allowed to vary with depth along

LY
9  the embedded portion of the foundation, and (ii) the free-field motion used as input
10  motion is defined at the ground surface or at the bottom of the basement. The dashpots

N
11  would account for the radiation and hysteretic damping of the geologic media, either per
12  Section 19.3 or more detailed formulations.

O
13  C19.3 FOUNDATION DAMPING
n
io
14  The procedures in Section 19.3 are used to estimate an SSI system damping ratio, β0 , based on
at

15  the underlying geologic media and interaction of the structure and its foundation with this
m

16  geologic media.

or

17  Tables 19.3-1, 19.3-2 and 19.3-3 provide values for three parameters that are used in the
18  evaluation of damping in an SSI system: (1) effective shear wave velocity ratios (Table 19.3-1),
nf

19  (2) effective shear modulus ratios (Table 19.3-2), and (3) soil hysteretic damping ratios (Table
rI

20  19.3-3). These parameters represent different effects of soil nonlinearity, which has a
21  fundamental dependence on shear strain. Strain levels are indirectly represented in the tables by
Fo

22  different site classes and different ranges of effective peak acceleration. All other factors being
23  equal, strains (and nonlinear effects on the respective parameters) increase as site conditions
24  soften and effective peak accelerations increase. For each of the three identified tables, new
25  values of the associated ratios were added to account for the new site classes added in Chapter
26  20.
27 
28  There are two main components that contribute to foundation damping: soil hysteretic damping
29  and radiation damping. The provisions in this section provide simplified ways to approximate

8 
 
 1  these effects. However, they are complex phenomena and there are considerably more detailed
2  methods to predict their effects on structures. The majority of the provisions in this section are
3  based on material in NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012). Detailed explanations of the
4  background of these provisions, supplemental references, and more sophisticated methods for
5  predicting radiation damping can be found in that report. However, those references do not
˜
6  provide the derivation of the effective period lengthening ratio, (T / T )eff given by

7  Equation (19.3-2). This ratio appears in the equation for β0 (Equation (19.3-1)), and it is derived

LY
8  from the total displacement of the mass of the SSI oscillator model, resulting from a horizontal
9  force applied to the mass. A component of this displacement is the displacement of the mass

N
10  relative to its base, and it is equal to the ductility demand, μ, times the elastic displacement of the

O
11  mass relative to the base. The other components of the total displacement arise from

12  displacement of the translational foundation spring ( Ky or Kr ) and the translation resulting from

n
the rotational foundation spring ( Kxx or Krr ). The period lengthening ratio, ( T / T ) appearing in
io
13 

14  Equation (19.3-2), is derived in the same manner assuming that μ  1 .

at

Radiation damping refers to energy dissipation from wave propagation away from the vibrating
m

15 
16  foundation. As the ground shaking is transmitted into the structure’s foundation, the structure
or

17  itself begins to translate and rock. The motion of the foundation relative to the free-field motion
creates waves in the geologic media, which can act to counter the waves being transmitted
nf

18 
19  through the geologic media caused by the earthquake shaking. The interference is dependent on
rI

20  the stiffness of the geologic media and the structure, the size of the foundation, type of
Fo

21  underlying geologic media, and period of the structure. The equations for radiation damping in
22  Section 19.3.3 were taken from NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012); details of the derivation are
23  found in Givens (2013).

24  In Section 19.3.3, the equations for Ky and Kxx , for rectangular foundations, and the associated

25  damping ratios, β y and βxx , come from Pais and Kausel (1988) and are listed in Table 2-2a and

26  Table 2-3a in the NIST report. The corresponding static stiffness equations for circular
27  foundations in Section 19.3.4 were taken from Veletsos and Verbic (1973); the other equations

9 
 
 1  appearing in Section 19.3.4 were adapted from equations in the NIST report. The foundation
2  stiffness and damping equations in these two sections apply to surface foundations. The reasons
3  for excluding embedment effects are explained in the third paragraph from the end of this
4  subsection.

5  Soil hysteretic damping occurs because of shearing within the soil and at the soil–foundation

6  interface. Values of the equivalent viscous damping ratio, βs , to model the hysteretic damping

7  can be obtained from site response analysis or Table 19.3-3.

LY
8  Foundation damping effects, modeled by β f , tend to be important for stiff structural systems

9  such as shear walls and braced frames, particularly where they are supported on relatively soft

N
10  soil sites, such as Site Classes D, DE, and E. This effect is determined by taking the ratio of the

O
11  fundamental period of the structure, including the flexibility of the foundation and underlying
12  subsurface media (flexible-base model) and the fundamental period of the structure assuming
13  n
infinite rigidity of the foundation and underlying subsurface media (fixed-base model).
io
14  Analytically, this ratio can be determined by computing the period of the structure with the
at

15  foundation/soil springs in the model and then replacing those springs with rigid support.
m

16  Figure C19.3-1 illustrates the effect of the period ratio, T / T , on the radiation damping, βr ,
or

17  which typically accounts for most of the foundation damping. T / T is the ratio of the
nf

18  fundamental period of the SSI system to the period of the fixed-base structure. The figure shows
19  that for structures with larger height, h, to foundation half-width, B , aspect ratios, the effects of
rI

20  foundation damping become less. In this figure, the aspect ratio of the foundation is assumed to
Fo

21  be square.

10 
 
 LY
N
O
1 

2  FIGURE C19.3-1. Example of radiation damping.

n
io
3  Source: NIST 2012.
at

4  These inertial interaction effects are influenced considerably by the shear modulus of the
m

5  underlying subgrade, specifically the modulus that coincides with the seismic shaking being
considered. As noted in the standard, shear modulus G can be evaluated from small-strain shear
or

6 

wave velocity as G  (G / Go )Go  (G / Go )γvso / g (all terms defined in the standard). Shear
2
7 
nf

8  wave velocity, vso , should be evaluated as the average small-strain shear wave velocity within
rI

9  the effective depth of influence below the foundation. The effective depth should be taken as half
Fo

10  the lesser dimension of the foundation, which, in the provisions, is defined as B . Methods for

11  measuring vso (preferred) or estimating it from other soil properties are summarized elsewhere

12  (e.g., Kramer 1996).

13  The radiation damping procedure is conservative and underestimates the foundation damping for
14  shaking in the long direction where the foundation aspect ratios exceed 2:1 but could potentially
15  be unconservative where wall and frame elements are close enough so that waves emanating
16  from distinct foundation components destructively interfere with each other across the period

11 
 
 1  range of interest. That is why the limit of spacing of the vertical lateral force-resisting elements
2  is imposed on the use of these provisions.

3  For structures supported on footings, the formulas for radiation damping can generally be used
4  with B and L calculated using the footprint dimensions of the entire structure, provided that
5  the footings are interconnected with grade beams and/or a sufficiently rigid slab on grade. An
6  exception can occur for structures with both shear walls and frames, for which the rotation of the
7  foundation beneath the wall may be independent of that for the foundation beneath the column
8  (this type is referred to as weak rotational coupling). In such cases, B and L are often best

LY
9  calculated using the dimensions of the wall footing. Very stiff foundations like structural mats,
10  which provide strong rotational coupling, are best described using B and L values that reflect

N
11  the full foundation dimension. Regardless of the degree of rotational coupling, B and L should

O
12  be calculated using the full foundation dimension if foundation elements are interconnected or
13  continuous. Further discussion can be found in FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) and NIST GCR 12-
14  917-21 (NIST 2012). n
io
The radiation damping provisions conservatively exclude the effects of embedment. Embedment
at
15 
16  typically increases the amount of radiation damping if the basement or below-grade foundation
m

17  stays in contact with the soil on all sides. Because there is typically some gapping between the
or

18  soil and the sides of the basement or foundation, these embedment effects may be less than the
19  models predict. There are some additional issues with the procedures for embedded foundations.
nf

20  In the case where the embedment is significant but the soils along the sides are much more
rI

21  flexible than the bearing soils, a high impedance contrast between the first two layers is
22  recognized as a potential problem regardless of the embedment. The NIST GCR 12-917-21
Fo

23  (NIST 2012) report therefore recommends ignoring the additional contributions caused by
24  embedment but still using the soil properties derived below the embedded base.

25  The equations in Sections 19.3.3 and 19.3.4 are for shallow foundations. This is not to say that
26  radiation damping does not occur with deep (pile or caisson) foundation systems, but the
27  phenomenon is more complex. Soil layering and group effects are important, and there are the
28  issues of the possible contributions of the bottom structural slab and pile caps. Because the
29  provisions are based on the impedance produced by a rigid plate in soil, these items cannot be

12 
 
 1  easily taken into account. Therefore, more detailed modeling of the soil and the embedded
2  foundations is required to determine the foundation impedances. The provisions permit such
3  modeling but do not provide specific guidance for it. Guidance can be found, for example, in
4  NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) and its references.

5  Soil hysteretic damping occurs as seismic waves propagate through the subsurface media and
6  reach the base of the structure, and it can have an effect on the overall system damping when the
7  soil strains are high. Table 19.3-3 in the provisions was derived based on relationships found in

8  EPRI (1993) and Vucetic and Dobry (1991) that relate the ratio between G/ G0 to cyclic shear

LY
9  strain in the soil, and then to soil damping. The values in the table are based on conservative
assumptions about overburden pressures on granular soils and plasticity index of clayey soils.

N
10 
11  This simplified approach does not preclude the geotechnical engineer from providing more

O
12  detailed estimates of soil damping. However, the cap on reductions in the seismic demand are
13  typically reached at around an additional 5% hysteretic damping ratio (10% total damping ratio),
and further reductions would require peer review.n
io
14 
at
15  C19.4 KINEMATIC SSI EFFECTS
m

16  Kinematic SSI effects are broadly defined as the difference between the ground motion measured
or

17  in a free-field condition and the motion which would be measured at the structure’s foundation,
18  assuming that it and the structure were massless (i.e., inertial SSI was absent). The differences
nf

19  between free-field and foundation input motions are caused by the characteristics of the structure
rI

20  foundation, exclusive of the soil and radiation damping effects in the preceding section. There
21  are two main types of kinematic interaction effects: base slab averaging and embedment. The
Fo

22  provisions provide simplified methods for capturing these effects. The basis for the provisions
23  and additional background material can be found in FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) and NIST GCR
24  12-917-21 (NIST 2012).

25  FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) specifically recommends against applying these provisions to very
26  soft soil sites such as E and F. These provisions allow kinematic SSI for Site Class E but retain
27  the prohibition for Site Class F. That is not to say that kinematic interaction effects are not
28  present at Site Class F sites, but that these specific provisions should not be used; rather, more

13 
 
 1  detailed site-specific assessments are permitted to be used to determine the possible
2  modifications at those sites.

3  In addition to the prescriptive methods contained in the standard, there are also provisions that
4  allow for direct computation of the transfer function of the free-field motion to a foundation
5  input motion caused by base slab averaging or embedment. Guidance on how to develop these
6  transfer functions can be found in NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) and the references
7  contained therein.

LY
8  C19.4.1 Base Slab Averaging

Base slab averaging refers to the filtering of high-frequency portions of the ground shaking

N
9 
10  caused by the incongruence of motion over the base. For this filtering to occur, the base of the

O
11  structure must be rigid or semirigid with respect to the vertical lateral force-resisting elements
12  and the underlying soil. If the motions are out of phase from one end of the foundation to the
n
other and the foundation is sufficiently rigid, then the motion on the foundation would be
io
13 
14  different from the ground motion at either end. The ground motions at any point under the
at

15  structure are not in phase with ground motions at other points along the base of the structure.
m

16  That incongruence leads to interference over the base of the structure, which translates into the
17  motions imparted to the foundation, which are different from the ground motions. Typically, this
or

18  phenomenon results in a filtering out of short-period motions, which is why the reduction effect
nf

19  is much more pronounced in structures with short fundamental periods, as illustrated in
20  Figure C19.4-1.
rI
Fo

21 

14 
 
 1  FIGURE C19.4-1. Example of base slab averaging response spectra ratios.

2  Figure C19.4-1 illustrates the increase in reduction as the base area parameter, be , increases.

3  This parameter is computed as the square root of the foundation area. Therefore, for larger
4  foundations, base slab averaging effects are more significant.

5  For base slab averaging effects to occur, foundation components must be interconnected with
6  grade beams or a concrete slab that is sufficiently stiff to permit the base to move as a unit and
7  allow this filtering effect to occur. That is why requirements are placed on the rigidity of the

LY
8  foundation diaphragm relative to the vertical lateral force-resisting elements at the first story.
9  Additionally, requirements are placed on the floor diaphragm or roof diaphragm, in the case of a

N
10  one-story structure needing to be stiff in order for this filtering of ground motion to occur.

O
11  FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) indicates that there is a lack of data regarding this effect when either
12  the base slab is not interconnected or the floor diaphragms are flexible. It is postulated that
13 
n
reductions between the ground motion and the foundation input motion may still occur. Because
io
14  cases like this have not been studied in FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) and NIST GCR 12-917-21
at
15  (NIST 2012) explicitly, the requirements for foundation connectivity and stiff or rigid
16  diaphragms above the foundation have been incorporated into the provisions.
m

17  The underlying models have only been studied up to an effective base size of 260 ft (79.2 m),
or

18  which is why that limitation has been placed on Equation (19.4-4). FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005)
nf

19  postulates that this effect is likely to still occur for larger base areas, but there has not been
20  sufficient study to compare the underlying equations to data at larger effective base sizes.
rI

21  Also, because the reduction can become quite significant and because studies of these
Fo

22  phenomena have indicated variability between the theoretically predicted modifications and
23  actual measured modifications (Stewart et al. 1999, Stewart 2000), a 0.75 factor is applied to the
24  equations that are found in NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) to provide an upper bound
25  estimate of the reduction factors with respect to the theoretical models. This is why the equations
26  differ from those found in FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005).

27  Lastly, the method has not been rigorously studied for structures on piles (NIST 2012); however,
28  it is considered reasonable to extend the application to pile-supported structures in which the pile

15 
 
 1  caps are in contact with the soil and are laterally connected to one another. Another justification
2  is that some of the empirical data for kinematic SSI come from pile-supported structures.

3  C19.4.2 Embedment

4  The kinematic interaction effects caused by embedment occur because the seismic motions vary
5  with depth below the ground surface. It is common for these effects to be directly considered in a
6  site-specific response spectrum by generating response spectra and acceleration histories at the
7  embedded base of the structure instead of the ground surface. If that is not done, then these

LY
8  effects can be accounted for using the provisions in this section. However, these provisions
9  should not be used if the response spectrum has already been developed at the embedded base of

N
10  the structure. The embedment effect model was largely based on studies of structures with

O
11  basements. The provisions can also be applied to structures with embedded foundations without
12  basements where the foundation is laterally connected at the plane taken as the embedment
13 
n
depth. However, the provisions are not applicable to embedded individual spread footings.
io
14  As with base slab averaging, the reduction can become quite significant, and studies of these
at

15  phenomena have indicated variability between the theoretically predicted modifications and
m

16  actual measured modifications (Stewart et al. 1999). Again, a 0.75 factor is applied to the
17  equations found in NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) to provide a slightly conservative
or

18  estimate of the reductions with respect to the theoretical models. This is why the equations differ
nf

19  from those found in FEMA 440 (FEMA 2005) and NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012).
20  Additionally, the underlying models upon which the provisions are based have only been
rI

21  validated in NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) up to an effective embedment depth of
Fo

22  approximately 20 ft (6.096 m), which is why a depth limitation has been placed on
23  Equation (19.2-4).

24  REFERENCES

25  ATC (Applied Technology Council).(1978). Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic
26  Regulations for Buildings, ATC-3-06, Redwood City, CA.

16 
 
 1  EPRI (Electrical Power Research Institute). (1993). Guidelines for determining design basis
2  ground motions, EPRI TR-102293, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.

3  FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static

4  seismic analysis procedures, FEMA 440. FEMA, Washington, DC.

5  Givens, M. J. (2013). Dynamic soil-structure interaction of instrumented buildings and test

6  structures, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, Dept of Civil and Environmental
7  Engineering.

LY
8  Jarernprasert, S., Bazan-Zurita, E., and Bielak, J. (2013). “Seismic soilstructure interaction
9  response of inelastic structures.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 47, 132–143.

N
10  Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,

O
11  NJ.

12  n
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). (2012). Soil-structure interaction for
io
13  building structures, NIST GCR 12-917-21. NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
at

14  Pais, A., and Kausel, E. (1988). “Approximate formulas for the dynamic stiffness of rigid
m

15  foundations.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 7(4), 213–227.

or

16  Stewart, J. P. (2000). “Variations between foundation-level and free-field earthquake ground
17  motions,” Earthquake Spectra, 16(2), 511–532.
nf

18  Stewart, J. P., Seed, R. B., and Fenves, G. L. (1999). “Seismic soil-structure interaction in
rI

19  buildings. II: Empirical findings.” J. Geotech. Geoenvir. Engrg., 125(1), 38–48.
Fo

20  Veletsos, A. S., and Verbic, B. (1973). “Vibration of viscoelastic foundations.” Earthq. Engrg.
21  Struct. Dyn. 2(1), 87–105.

22  Vucetic, M., and R., Dobry (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.” J. Geotech.
23  Eng., 117, 89–107.

17