\

=
2 . 1
14100
1
1
T
b
RRS
e
bsa
the value for T = 0.2 s (1)
3. If the structure has a basement embedded depth e from the ground surface, evaluate an additional
RRS due to embedment (RRS
e
) as a function of period fromEq. (2).
>


.

\

=
s
e
n T
e
RRS
v
t 2
cos the larger of 0.453
or the RRS
e
value for T =0.2 s. (2)
where, e =basement embedment (in feet); v
s
=shear wave velocity for site soil conditions, taken
as average value of velocity to a depth of b
e
below foundation (ft/s); n =shear wave velocity
3
reduction factor for the expected Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) as given in Table 1, where g
is the acceleration due to gravity.
4. Evaluate the product of RRS
bsa
times RRS
e
to obtain the total RRS for each period of interest. The
spectral ordinate of the Foundation Input Motion (FIM) at each period is the product of the FFM
spectrumand the total RRS.
5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 for other periods if desired to generate a complete spectrumfor the FIM.
2. Inertial Interaction Effects
i. EffectiveDynamic Shear Modulus: The most important parameter required to incorporate SSI
effects is stiffness parameter, i.e., effective or dynamic shear modulus of soil. The computation
procedure of effective or dynamic shear modulus, G, is given in subsequent steps.
1. The type of site for SSI analysis as per [4] has been identified by comparing the types of soil
constituting the foundation as per [9], IS 2131 (1981) [10] and Table 2 taken from ATC 40
[2]. For present study, site class D and site class E of [4] are taken for Case II and Case III,
respectively.
2. The value of shortperiod response acceleration parameter for site class B [4], S
S
, are
determined fromUFC 331001 (2007) [13] obtained for 2500 years event.
3. The maximumconsidered shortperiod spectral response acceleration parameter, S
XS
= F
a
S
S
,
where, F
a
is site coefficient determined fromTable 3, based on the site class and the value of
the response acceleration parameter, S
S
.
4. Five  percent damped design spectral response acceleration at short periods, S
DS
= 2 S
XS
/ 3.
5. The initial shear modulus, G
o
= (v
s
)
2
/g
, where v
s
is theshear wave velocity at low strains,
is the weight density of the soil, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
6. The effectivedynamic shear modulus, G, shall be calculated in accordance with values of
ratio of effective shear modulus given in tabulated form in FEMA 356 [3].
ii. SoilStiffness Factors: Using the soilstiffness factors given in [3], the stiffness terms can be
calculated for embedded foundations.
iii. SystemDamping
1. Evaluate the linear periods for the structural model assuming a fixed base, T, and a flexible
base, T, using appropriate foundation modeling assumptions.
2. Calculate the effective structural stiffness of the single degree of freedom (SDOF) oscillator
for fixed base conditions from Eq. (3). In Eq. (3), M* is the effective mass for the first mode
calculated as the total mass times the effective mass coefficient,
m
o , which is calculated
fromEq. (4). In Eq. (4), w
i
is weight assigned to level i,
im
is amplitude of mode mat level
i, N is level N, the level which is uppermost in the main portion of the structure, g is
acceleration due to gravity.
2
* *
2

.

\

=
T
M K
fixed
t
(3)
4
(
=
= =
=
g w g w
g w
N
i
m i
N
i
i
N
i
m i
m
1
2
1
2
1

o (Unitless) (4)
3. Determine the equivalent foundation radius for translation, r
x
, fromEq. (5). In Eq. (5), A
f
is
the area of the foundation footprint if the foundation components are interconnected
laterally.
t
f
x
A
r = (5)
4. Calculate the translational stiffness of the foundation, K
x
= 8 G r
x
/ (2 ), where, G is
effective strain  degraded soil shear modulus and is soil Poissons ratio.
5. Calculate the equivalent foundation radius for rotation, r
\

=
u
(6)
3
1
3
) 1 ( 3

.

\

=
G
K
r
u
u
u
(7)
6. Determine the basement embedment, e, if applicable.
7. Estimate the effective periodlengthening ratio, ,
eff
eff T T using the sitespecific structural
model developed for nonlinear pushover analysis. This periodlengthening ratio is calculated
for the structure in its degraded state (i.e., accounting for structural ductility and soil
ductility). An expression for the ratio is given by Eq. (8). In Eq. (8), the term is the
expected ductility demand for the system(i.e., including structure and soil effects).
5
5 . 0
2
1
1
1
(
(


.

\

+ =
T
T
T
T
eff
eff
(8)
8. Evaluate the initial fixedbase damping ratio for the structure,
i
, which is often taken as 5
%.
9. Determine foundation damping due to radiation damping,
f
, fromEq. (9). Eq. (9) is
applicable for
eff
eff T T
<1.5, and generally provide conservative (low) damping estimates
for higher
eff
eff T T
.
2
2 1
1 1


.

\

+


.

\

=
eff
eff
eff
eff
f
T
T
a
T
T
a  % (9)
where, a
1
=c
e
exp (4.7 1.6h / r
), a
2
= c
e
[25 ln (h/r
) 16] and c
e
=1.5 (e / r
x
) +1
10. Evaluate the flexiblebase damping ratio,
0
, fromEq. (10).
( )
3
eff
eff
i
f o
T T

  + = (10)
11. Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates for the change in damping ratio from
i
to
0
, then
modify the spectrumof the foundation input motion.
MODELING, ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The modeling, analysis and design of buildings for considered three cases have been described in detail in
[1]. The kinematic interaction effects have been neglected for Case III as per [4]. The sample calculations
for illustration of incorporation of kinematic interaction effects for Case II are shown in Table 4. The
calculation of values of effectivedynamic shear modulus for Case II and Case III are shown in Table 5.
With the help of soil stiffness factors given in tabulated formin [3], the soilstiffness factors determined
for Case II and Case III are given in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. The dimension of isolatedsquare
footing is assumed as 2.4 mx 2.4 mx 0.6 mfor the determination of soilstiffness factors for both Case II
and Case III. The assumed dimension and type of footing for Case II are found to be compatible with the
designed foundation type. For Case III, the bearing capacity of the soil is low, and therefore, the raft
foundation has to be provided in place of isolated footings. Therefore, the raft foundation of size 20 mx
20 mx 0.5 m was made to evaluate soil stiffness factors for whole mat area. Table 7 gives two values of
stiffness factors; they are for Case III for whole matfoundation area and for 4.5mx 4.5marea. In SAP
[12], the mat foundation can be modeled by using an area element. The stiffness factors for a mat
foundation can be applied as area springs by dividing the mat area into some number of elements (see in
[12], help>mat>area springs). Therefore, the whole mat area is divided into sixteen numbers of elements,
which are equal to the number of slabs at any level. Then, the stiffness factors are divided by sixteen and
the stiffness factors are entered in [12] for the area equal to that of a slab, i.e., 4.5mx 4.5m=20.25 m
2
and this value of area has also been entered in [12]. The values of flexible base damping for Case II and
Case III calculated according to the procedure discussed in the preceding section are shown in Table 8.
The summary of the analysis performed in [12] is given in Table 9.
In Table 9, the base shear ratio
B
B V V
_
represents ratio of design base shear obtained using fundamental
time period of the structure to the base shear obtained fromresponse spectrumanalysis in [12]. S
a
/g and
6
T
n
are the average response acceleration coefficient and the natural or fundamental time period of the
structure obtained as per [9], respectively. Scale factor (SF =ZIg/2R), which is analogous to design
horizontal seismic coefficient defined in [9], when SF and response spectrumare together considered in
analysis in [12]. According to [9], when base shear obtained fromresponse spectrummethod is less than
the base shear obtained using fundamental time period of the structure, all the response quantities like
member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears and base reactions are multiplied by base shear
ratio. This multiplication of base shear ratio is apparently done in [12] by modification of SF. The design
and detailing of buildings are performed as per IS 456 (2000) [5], IS 13920 (1993) [11].
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
The comparison of structural cost, in terms of cost of required quantity of plain concrete in beams,
columns and footings for all the considered cases, is shown in Figure 1. The comparison of structural
cost, in terms of cost of required quantity of reinforced steel in beams, columns and footings for all the
considered cases, is shown in Figure 2. The comparison of structural cost for all considered cases is
shown in Figure 3.
The following conclusions are drawn from the comparison of structural cost among the considered three
cases:
1. The cost of concrete required for Case II and Case III increased by 5 % and 42 %, respectively, in
comparison to Case I.
2. The cost of reinforced steel required for Case II and Case III increased by 6 % and 25 %,
respectively, in comparison to Case I.
3. The structural cost for Case II and Case III increased by 6 % and 36 %, respectively, in
comparison to Case I.
The following SSI effects have been observed during the analysis for Case II and Case III as deciphered
fromTable 9.
1. The design base shear for Case II considering the fixed base is, 1118.79 kN while the design base
shear obtained considering SSI effects comes out to be 1114.07 kN. The fundamental timeperiod
for case II for the fixed base and the flexible base model are, respectively, 1.0605 sec and 1.081
sec. The systemdamping ratio for Case II has been found as 5.14 %.
2. The design base shear for case III considering the fixed base is, 1118.79 kN while the design base
shear obtained considering SSI effects comes out to be 1091.114 kN. The fundamental time
period for case II for the fixed base and the flexible base model are, respectively, 1.0605 sec and
1.1568 sec. The systemdamping ratio for Case III has been found as 5.81 %.
3. The less variation in the time period obtained from analysis before and after considering SSI in
buildings in present study is found to be dependent to some extent upon constant region of
response spectrum, as there is no variation in value of average response acceleration coefficient
and thus the value of design base shear remained constant for all cases. This approximately
equalizes the final base shear of the buildings for all cases. Thus, there is also no variation in time
period when the KI was considered and the base was fixed. The little variation in the time period
is found to be contributed by the only consideration of inertial interaction in considered cases.
REFERENCES
1. Ahir, N. (2009). Effect of Foundation Soil on Structural Economics of Earthquake Resistance Design
of RC Building, M. Tech. Dissertation, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee  247667, Roorkee, India.
2. ATC40 (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
7
3. FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
4. FEMA 440 (2005). Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
5. IS 456 : 2000 (fourth revision). Indian Standard Plane and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
6. IS 875 (Part 1) : 1987 (Second revision). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other
than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures (Dead Loads), Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
7. IS 875 (Part 2) : 1987 (Second revision). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other
than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures (Imposed Loads), Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
8. IS 875 (Part 5) : 1987 (Second revision). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Special Loads and
Load Combination for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
9. IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 (fifth revision). Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structure, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
10. IS 2131 : 1981 (First revision). Indian Standard Method for Standard Penetration Test for Soils,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
11. IS 13920 : 1993 (Reaffirmed 2003). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of
Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
12. SAP 2000 Advanced 10.0.1 Software Computers and Structures Inc. University Avenue Berkeley,
California, USA.
13. UFC 331001 (2005, Including Change, 2007). Structural Load Data, United Facilities Criteria,
Department of Defense, USA.
Table 1: Approximated Values of Shear Wave Velocity Reduction Factor, n [4]
PGA 0.1g 0.15g 0.20g 0.30g
n 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.65
Table 2: Typical Shallow Bearing Soil Material Properties [2]
Average Properties in Zone of Influence
Soil
Profile
Type
Description Shear wave
Velocity,
s
v
(ft/sec)
SPT N
(blows/ft)
Weight
Density,
(pcf)
Range of Initial Shear
Modulus, G
o
(psf x 10
6
)
Low High
S
A
Hard Soil >5000 120
S
B
Rock 2500  5000 140 + 25 120
S
c
Dense Soil Soft
Rock
1200  2500 >50 120  140 5 25
S
D
Stiff Soil 600  1200 15 50 100 130 1 5
S
E
Soft Soil <600 <15 90  120 <1
Table 3: Values of Site Coefficient F
a
[3]
Site Class
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, S
S
S
s
< 0.25 S
s
= 0.50 S
s
= 0.75 S
s
= 1.00 S
s
> 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
8
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F Note b Note b Note b Note b Note b
Table 4: Sample Calculations to Illustrate Incorporation of Kinematic Interaction for Case II [1]
Quantity T (Sa/g)
FFM
a b b
e
RRS
bsa
e RRS
e
(Sa/g)
FIM
Units sec ft ft ft ft
0 1 59.06 59.06 59.06 0.93 0 1 0.93
0.01 1.15 59.06 59.06 59.06 0.93 0 1 1.07
Table 5: Calculation of Effective Dynamic Shear Modulus [1]
Parameters Case II Case III
S
S
1.289 1.289
F
a
1 0.9
S
DS
0.8593 0.7734
(g/cm3)
1.65 1.6
s
v (m/s)
150 110
G
o
(x 10
6
N/m2) 37.125 19.36
G/G
o
0.575 0.215
G (x 10
6
N/m2) 21.35 4.16
Table 6: Soil Stiffness Factors for Case II [1]
Degree of Freedom Units K
sur
(x 10
8
)

K
emb
(x 10
8
)
Translation along xaxis N/m 1.46 2.24 3.27
Translation along yaxis N/m 1.46 2.24 3.27
Translation along zaxis N/m 1.99 1.37 2.72
Rocking about xaxis Nm/rad 2.44 2.00 4.88
Rocking about yaxis Nm/rad 2.46 2.19 5.39
Rocking about zaxis Nm/rad 3.04 2..49 7.58
Table 7: Soil Stiffness Factors for Case III [1]
Degree of Freedom Units K
su
(x10
8
)

K
emb
(x 10
8
)
For Whole Mat Area For 4.5 m x 4.5 m Area
Translation along xaxis N/m 2.47 1.23 3.03 0.19
Translation along yaxis N/m 2.47 1.23 3.03 0.19
Translation along zaxis N/m 3.56 1.06 3.77 0.24
Rocking about xaxis Nm/rad 30.27 1.07 32.28 2.02
Rocking about yaxis Nm/rad 30.51 1.74 53.00 3.31
Rocking about zaxis Nm/rad 34.63 1.19 41.14 2.57
9
Table 8: Computation of Flexible Base Damping Ratio,
0
[1]
Quantity Units Values
Case II Case III
T , T sec 1.06, 1.081 1.06, 1.157
m
o
0.91 0.91
M
*
kg 1508237.1 1508237.1
K
*
fixed
N/m 53035560 53035560
A
f
m
2
324 400
r
x
m 10.15 11.28
G MPa 21.35 4.16
u
0.4 0.45
K
x
N/m 1.084E+09 242364929
h, h
*
m 12.8, 9.55 12.8, 9.55
u
K
Nm/rad 5.66E+11 1.762E+11
u
r
m 18.14 20.59
,
eff
eff T T
3, 1.01 3, 1.03
e
m 0 0
c
e
, a
1
, a
2
1, 35.55, 24.71 1, 40.67, 27.89
f
 , i  ,
o

% 0.24, 5, 5.14 1.25, 5, 5.81
Table 9: Summary of Analysis Performed in SAP [12]
Case Model
No.
Base
Type
KI
T
n
(sec)
S
a
/g
B V
_
(kN)
T
(sec)
T
(sec)
B
B V V
_
SF
o
 ,
%
I 1 Fixed No 0.303 2.5 1118.79 1.061  4.037 0.2354 5
2 Fixed No 0.303 2.5 1118.79 1.061  0.999 0.9505 5
II 1 Fixed Yes 0.303 2.5 1118.79 1.061  3.890 0.2354 5
2 Fixed Yes 0.303 2.5 1118.79 1.061  0.780 0.9160 5
10
3 Flexible Yes 0.303 2.5 1118.79  1.081 3.030 0.2354 5
4 Flexible Yes 0.303 2.5 1118.79  1.081 1.004 0.7135 5.14
III 1 Fixed No 0.303 2.5 1118.79 1.061  3.030 0.2354 5
2 Fixed No 0.303 2.5 1118.79 1.061  1.000 0.7139 5
3 Flexible No 0.303 2.5 1118.79  1.157 2.900 0.2354 5
4 Flexible No 0.303 2.5 1118.79  1.157 1.025 0.6828 5.81
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
B C F Sum
Case I
Case II
Case III
Fig. 1: Comparison of Cost in Rupees of Required Quantity of Plain Concrete [1]
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
B C F Sum
Case I
Case II
Case III
Fig. 2: Comparison of Cost in Rupees of Required Quantity of Reinforced Steel [1]
B  Beams
C  Columns
F  Footings
B  Beams
C  Columns
F  Footings
11
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
PC RS Sum
Case I
Case II
Case III
Fig. 3: Comparison of Structural Cost in Rupees [1]
PC  Plain
Concrete
RS  Steel
Reinforcement