You are on page 1of 14

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction

on Multi Storey Buildings on Mat
Foundation
Ankit Kumar Jha, Kumar Utkarsh and Rajesh Kumar

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

Keywords Soil-structure interaction
Response spectrum
method Seismic analysis Multi-storey building   

Finite element

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

703

Mainly two methods have been devised for soilfoundation interaction analysis namely the direct analysis and substructure method [3–9]. 13]. with same mat depth for each case.K. 2 Soil-Structure Interaction Soil structure interaction (SSI) refers to the effect of soil and its sub-grade on response of the structure.704 A. These displacements dissipate energy. The model is simulated on ANSYS 14. kinematic interaction effects. do not provide detailed provisions for including SSI. Apparently. moment and torsion are generated due to vibration. The relation between time periods of single degree of freedom system can be expressed as: T~ ¼ T sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi kfixed kfixed h2 1þ þ kx kh ð1Þ . SSI effects can be classified as inertial interaction effects. and effects of soil-foundation flexibility [12]. Jha et al. this perception stems from oversimplifications in the nature of seismic forces adopted in most of the present codes [1].5 (general purpose finite element software). All of this originates due to the flexibility of the foundation. For better accuracy and results non-linearity associated with structure has also been considered. These contribute to overall structural flexibility and increases the building period [10. With reference to engineering analysis these effects can be referred to: Foundation stiffness and damping. Finite element method (FEM) has been employed to study the effects of soil on response of the structure subjected to ground acceleration. This paper addresses the issue of soil structure interaction and gives a detailed comparison between fixed base type analysis and structure with a flexible base subjected to ground motion. SSI accounts for the difference between the actual response of the structure and the response when the connection is assumed to be rigid [11]. Direct analysis includes soil and structure in the same model and analyses it as a whole whereas substructure method treats each component separately and then combines them to get the result [10]. causing displacements and rotations at the interface. The model is exited from the base and response of the structure is calculated. However in current practice the effects of supporting soil are neglected primarily because of complexities associated in the modelling of soil and assumptions of conservative design on simplification of the model. Shear. which significantly affects response of the system. Deformation along X axis (horizontal) has been compared for different cases. There has been continuous research on the effect of this interaction on the whole structure [2]. Even the present Indian code IS 1893:2002 Part-I which addresses the need of dynamic analysis in buildings however. response of the structure. A number of three bay multi-storey framed structures with different heights have been modeled on mat foundation.

Direct analysis: In direct analysis the soil and structure are included within the same model and analysed as a complete system.Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction … 705 where T~ is the new time period. 1 and 2). for multi-degree freedom system h is the height of the centre of mass for the first mode shape. T is the fixed base model period. The soil and structure both are represented as a continuum. Substructure approach: This method is rather convenient and a step by step procedure. and h is the height of building. next step involves computation of transfer functions to convert free-field motions into FIM. and shear deformations of structural foundation elements occur as a result of forces and displacements applied by the superstructure and the soil medium. this approach is generally avoided because of high computational time especially when the geometry of the system is complex or irregular. Fig. Flexural. kh is the rotational stiffness. 1 Direct method of analysis [10] . There are two methods of evaluating the above effects. The Direct analyses renders all of the SSI effects. Lastly springs are employed to represent stiffness and damping at soil-foundation interface and then analysis is done on the complete system (Figs. however in practice. There can be difference between foundation input motion (FIM) and free-field ground motion because of kinematic interaction and relative deformations at soil foundation interface. Difference between foundation input motions and free-field ground motions. axial. kfixed is the stiffness of fixed base model. Foundation Deformation. In the first step evaluation of free-field soil motions is done. kx is stiffness of new model in x-direction.

Fig. Jha et al. All the buildings were symmetric in plan with three bays. c foundation-soil flexibility. It is quite obvious that the shape and size of beams and columns are decided based on serviceability and .K. and G + 25 multi-storey structures has been subjected to earthquake motions for two different cases. b kinematic interaction. The size of beams and columns were taken as 450 × 450 mm and 300 × 500 mm respectively with slab thickness as 250 mm. 2 Substructure method of SSI [13]. G + 18.706 A.1 Geometry As stated earlier the modelling and simulation of the problem has been done on ANSYS. a finite element software package. a Complete system. one with rigid connection to the underlying soil and other taking into considerations of soil foundation flexibility. Meshing was performed in ANSYS and the details have been shown in Table 1. G + 11. d excitation with FIM of structure with foundation flexibility/damping 3 Modelling and Formulation 3. In brief G + 7.

Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction … Table 1 Details of meshed soil-structure interaction model 707 Building Total number of nodes Total number of elements G G G G 62. This is justified in the manner that the prime purpose here is to compute and compare stresses and other parameters at various sections in the building.222 29.533 109. 3).270 24.995 72. 3 Isometric meshed model of G + 11 storey building with underlying soil strength criteria.646 71. However.615 145. and hence for different storey height their dimensions may not be the same. It is suggested that for practical design purpose all the relevant parameters should be checked after analysis and then the dimensions should be modified accordingly (Fig.009 + + + + 7 11 18 25 Fig. .252 52. the dimensions adopted here were unified for all class of buildings.

Mathematically it is expressed as pffiffiffiffiffi J2 ¼ A þ BI1 ð2Þ where I1 is the first invariant of the Cauchy stress and J2 is the second invariant of the deviatoric part of the Cauchy stress.3 0.K. A and B are constants which are determined from experiments (Table 2).07 2. and divided into three layers.2. However such model is just a simplification of the actual situation.07 2. 3.3 0. Jha et al.2 Soil-Foundation Contact Several approaches for modeling soil structure interface have been proposed. which is more than three to four times the radius of foundation. A fixed base model assumes rigid foundation elements connected to a rigid base.08 2.3 0. The most common and widely used is the fixed base assumption model.2 Soil Model Soil beneath the foundation and surrounding the building has been modeled in three layers each having different sets of parameters. In reality the flexibility of soil and foundation elements comes into play and hence many contact models have Table 2 Material properties Soil around mat Top layer of soil Second layer of soil Third layer of soil Concrete NL ν Poisson’s ratio γ Bulk density E Young’s Modulus φ angle of friction ν γ (g/cc) E (MPa) φ 0.18 2.5 100 100 150 180 30. Drucker-Prager Yield criterion has been used to model soil and concrete with other suitable physical properties.000 36° 36° 22° 18º – . Similarly vertical boundary has been taken 45 m deep from the centre of foundation to ensure the same.1 Drucker-Prager Model A Drucker-Prager yield criterion is used for modeling soil and other granular material such as concrete.07 2. This has been done to minimise the effect of reflexive waves [14].3 0. The boundary of the soil has been taken 25 m in horizontal direction from centre of the structure. 3.2. It is used to determine whether the material has failed or undergone plastic yielding. 3.708 A.

In general the soil-foundation contact is represented by complex-valued impedance function. A graphical view of the original ground motion data and the modified data in all three directions has been shown in the following figures (Figs. baseline model.1 Earthquake Vibrations EI Centro Ground motions in all three global directions were selected for the purpose of carrying out SSI investigations. Different methods of modelling soil are chosen according to requirements and importance of the structure. The transformed input motions were applied at the base of the model. 5. The selected data has been converted from time domain into frequency domain using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). and Winkler spring model. In this analysis the contact between soil and foundation has been considered to frictional. 4. therefore all the results hence obtained are as per governing linear methods of analysis. Fig. 4 EI Centro ground motion data in north south direction converted to frequency domain . The coefficient of friction was taken as 0. 7.Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction … 709 been proposed such as the rigid bathtub model. 4 Analysis 4. kj and cj denotes frequency dependent foundation stiffness and damping. where real part corresponds to stiffness and imaginary part is related to damping. Solution of this function [15] can be mathematically represented as kj ¼ kj þ ixcj ð3Þ where. 8 and 9).36. 6. Since frequency domain is only capable of dealing with linear responses. j denotes modes of displacement. kj denotes the impedance function. This impedance function represents frequency dependent stiffness and damping.

710 A. 7 EI Centro ground motion data in north south direction in time domain . 6 EI Centro ground motion data in vertical direction converted to frequency domain Fig. 5 EI Centro ground motion data in east-west direction converted to frequency domain Fig.K. Fig. Jha et al.

9 EI Centro ground motion data in vertical direction in time domain 4. 150 modes of frequencies were determined.Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction … 711 Fig. which was different for each model. It was found that a major contribution of effective mass came from a specific mode. This also serves as a prerequisite to perform response spectrum analysis. . this was done so as to keep effective mass more than 70 % in the each direction. 8 EI Centro ground motion data in east-west direction in time domain Fig. It is the study of dynamic properties of a body under free vibrations. The modal analysis was performed to determine natural modes of frequencies of the structural model.2 Modal Analysis Modal analysis is used to determine natural mode shapes and frequencies of any body.

€ugy . and acceleration.5 m) is highest for G + 7 building. for the higher levels. However. and €ugx . Whereas. in the case of frictional model the values of deformation at low level (as 9. velocity. or acceleration. This was expected as the restraint near contact region of soil and structure was released. Values of maximum shear stress for all building models have been found to be located at the base of the first storey and at the junction of middle column of the outer column line.5 m the deformation follows the pattern G + 25 > G + 18 > G + 11 > G + 7. 11) that at a fixed level say 9.3 Response Spectrum Analysis The general dynamic equation associated with the response of the structure to ground motion is given as _ þ M€ KuðtÞ þ C uðtÞ uðtÞ ¼ mx € ugx ðtÞ þ my €ugy ðtÞ þ mz €ugz ðtÞ ð4Þ where K is the stiffness matrix. u. Response spectrum analysis can be of two types namely. 4. 5 Results and Discussions The analysis performed on the soil-structure model render wide variations in deformation and stresses when soil-structure interaction is considered. mz are the unit acceleration loads. modal mass. mx.K. single-point method was used and SRSS method of combination was applied. There are many combination rules such as Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method. This can be clearly seen from the graph (Fig. The responses can be in form of displacement. single-point response spectrum analysis. This method uses the modes obtained from the modal analysis and based on modal frequency. and nearly same for G + 18 and G + 25 building. 10). M is the diagonal mass _ € matrix. In this paper all the modes from the modal analysis were used to perform the response spectrum. with respect to the ground. and €ugz are components of ground acceleration. A plot of maximum deformation along X-axis versus storey height shows high value for the frictional model (SSI model) than the fixed base model.712 A. C is the damping matrix. and combination rules value of the total maximum response of the system is given as output. velocity. A response spectrum analysis derives the maximum response of this equation and gives it as output. Jha et al. A further investigation shows that the frictional model has comparatively higher value than the fixed base model except in the case for G + 25 . my. u. Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method. and multi-point response spectrum analysis. A comparison of storey drift between the fixed base model and the frictional model shows that in fixed case the deformation followed the general pattern where the values of deformation at a fixed level increased with increasing overall building height. the trend followed is same as for fixed base model (Fig. u are the relative displacements.

25 17 20.5 13.25 17 20.75 9.25 17 20.75 24.5 13.75 24.5 13.25 32 Storey height (m) without SSI with SSI Fig.5 28.75 9.5 28.25 32 Storey drift along X-axis (mm) Storey height (m) 35 G+11 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.75 9.5 28.75 24.5 13.25 17 20.5 28.75 9.25 32 Storey drift along X-axis (mm) Storey height (m) 40 G+25 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.25 32 Storey drift along X-axis (mm) Storey height (m) 35 G+18 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.75 24. 10 Storey drift along X-direction versus storey height for all the four multi-storey buildings .Storey drift along X-axis (mm) Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction … 713 35 G+7 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.

6 8. Table 3 Values of maximum shear stress (N/mm2) Building Frictional contact model Fixed base model G G G G 1. Jha et al. G+18 G+7 G+11 G+25 Storey drift along X-axis (mm) 25 Storey drift without SSI 20 15 10 5 0 5.5 13. 11 G+25 G+18 G+11 Cumulative of storey drift for all four buildings in one graph storey building.25 32 Storey drift along X-axis (mm) Storey height (m) 40 Storey drift with SSI 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5.75 24.714 A. This is in contrast to what is normally expected.5426e+05 8.1443e+0.0703e+06 9.1327e+0.25 17 20.5 28.25 17 20.4921e+05 + + + + 7 11 18 25 .3034e+05 1.75 9.1442e+05 4.75 24.75 9. SSI effects are associated with increase in time period of the system and hence it is expected that the response of the structure under ground motion should decrease but this is not always true as evident from the results obtained (Table 3).5 13.25 32 28.7505e+05 5.5 3.5 Storey Height (m) G+7 Fig.K.

Gomez-Masso A. Gutierrez JA (1976) Substructure method for earthquake analysis of structure-soil interaction. report no. 2nd edn. J Earthquake Eng 4(3):277–301 2. Penzien J. FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA. Wiley. EERC 76-9 10. Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil-structure interaction. Department of Commerce. Berkeley. report no. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Mylonakis G. Prentice-Hall. Luco JE. Gaazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental. Taylor DW (1964) Fundamentals of soil mechanics.Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction … 715 References 1. UCB/EERC-79/18 8. Sept 2012 11. Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of Structures. Udaka T. U. University of California. Tsai C. J Eng Mech 97 (5):1381–1395 . report no. 2009) 13. McGraw-Hill. Berkeley. Wolf JP (1988) Soil ± structure interaction analysis in time domain. Tokyo 6. Massumi A (2010) A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil ± structure interaction. Seed HB (1975) FLUSH: a computer program for approximate 3D dynamic analysis of soil-structure problems. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Stewart JP Overview of soil-structure interaction principles. Prentice-Hall. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(9):822–832 12. Chen J-C. University of California. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1259–1267 15. Lysmer J.S. Seed HB (1979) Soil structure interaction in different seismic environments. Lin TW. Los Angeles. University of California. Gupta S. Berkeley. report no. Englewood Cliffs 5. Clough RW. University of California. University of California. EERC75-30 9. New York 3. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 14. Lysmer J. Berkeley. Englewood Cliffs 4. Westmann RA (1971) Dynamic response of circular footings. Tabatabaiefara HR. Yeh CS (1980) Hybrid modelling of soil ± structure interaction. Part-2. UCB/EERC-80/09 7. NIST GCR 12-917-21 (2012) Soil-structure interaction for building structures. Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

. .