Linear analysis of multi-storey building on raft

foundation including soil structure interaction

Mondal S1, Bhattacharya K2
1
Mtech student, Department of Civil engineering, NIT Durgapur
soumi.ash.tumpi@gmail.com
2
Professor, Department of Civil engineering, NIT Durgapur
Dr.k.bhattacharya@gmail.com

Abstract: During earthquakes the individual response of the superstructure, the foundation and the soil below influences each
other and together forms a complete system and there comes the concept of soil structure interaction. An attempt has been made in
this paper to study the seismic response of a RC frame building using the effect of soil-structure interaction. A G+27 storied building
subjected to seismic forces is modeled and analyzed through the finite element software program LUSAS 15.2. Maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) is considered in the study. Static (Seismic coefficient method), Dynamic (Response spectra method), Pseudo-static
method are used in the linear analysis of the structure. Deconvolution-reconvolution is performed using Deep soil 6.1 to get the
response spectra at the appropriate depth. Comparison based on the different seismic responses of the structure is made between the
above methods of analysis. The study reveals that soil flexibility has significant effect on the response of structure as it increases the
base shear of the building and also led to the decrease in natural frequency of structure vibration of frame building especially in soft
soil.

Keywords: Multi-storey building, Soil-structure interaction, Pseudo-static method, Deconvolution

I. Introduction of influence of SSI on response of a structure depends on

Designers have been trying hard for centuries to combat the
effect of the catastrophic act of nature, the Earthquakes and
build earthquake-resistant buildings with necessary strength
and stiffness. One of the most common types of
construction in buildings is a dual system comprising of set
of shear walls and moment resisting frame which interacts
with each other along the building height to resist the large
lateral forces of the earthquake. The shear walls respond by
bending as a cantilever and the frame deflects in a so called
shear mode. Their combined action causes the frame to
restrain the shear walls in upper stories and the shear walls
to restrain the frame in the lower stories, hence reducing the
lateral sway of the building, improving the overall stiffness
and making an able earthquake resistant structure. The
successful performance of the structure against earthquake
hazard also depends on the consideration of soil structure
interaction. The first aspect of soil structure interaction
comes from the kinematic interaction effects arising out of
wave propagation. As the seismic waves propagate through
the soil during earthquakes, disconnection in the medium
of wave’s propagation at the soil and structure foundation
interface causes diffraction, reflection, refraction of the
seismic waves at the interface changing the ground motion
which is much different from that which would have been
seen in the absence of the structure and foundation.
Moreover the seismic wave propagations take place due to
deformations in the medium. Inertial interaction is the
second aspect that arises due to the dynamic response
induced by the vibration structure and foundation. Degree
factors like Stiffness of soil, Dynamic Characteristics of
structure itself i.e. Natural Period and damping factor,
Stiffness and Mass of structure. In this present study
investigation based on seismic responses is carried out on a
G+27 storied RC frame structure with raft foundation with
and without soil structure interaction. The seismic
behaviour is evaluated using Seismic coefficient method,
Response spectra method and Pseudo-static method.
II. Literature review
Venkatesh M. B, R. D. Deshpande in 2017 studied the
earthquake behaviour of a 3D multiple bays regular 8
storied RC building over raft considering soil structure
interaction. Using STAAD.Pro. The earthquake records
have been scaled according to the IS 1893-2002 for each
type of soil and applied to the ordinary moment resisting
frame with different seismic zones. The study reveals that
natural time period of the structure decreased with soil
stiffness .The maximum time-period is for building resting
on soft soil with a increase of 19.67% . The base shear has
decreased for flexible base in comparison to building with
fixed base and there is a increase in base shear in soft and
medium soils when compared to hard soil. . A considerable
change is seen in raft shear stress and bending moment for
soft and medium soil type in contrast to hard soil.
Byresh A, Umadevi in 2016 G+10, G+20 and G+ 30 RC
frame buildings to analyze the fixed base condition and SSI
effect using finite element tools ETABS 15. The soil spring
is provided at the centre of rigidity of mat foundation for
SSI models and the results are compared for different  Haunch girders = 1.07 X 0.5 m for the exterior part
parameters for fixed base condition and including SSI. The of 8.5 m length, with a haunch in the interior tapering
analysis showed time period elongation occurred for SSI from a pan depth of 0.5 m to 0.84 m.
models compared to fixed base condition, the base shear  Skip joists = 0.15 m X 0.5 m
also decreases due to increase in time period due to  Shear walls = 0.45 m X 5.96 m
flexibility in soil condition. Storey drift has also increased  Columns = 0.965 m X 0.864 m.
in both the cases with magnification of storey drift in the  Slab =0.15 m thick is provided in all the floors.
middle stories, Shear force, bending moments are increased  Height of each floor is 3m.
with the incorporation of SSI effect.  Raft foundation =1.5 m deep
E. Pavan Kumar, A. Naresh, M. Nagajyothi, M.
 Soil extent = 80m X 190m
Rajasekhar in the year 2014 studied the seismic analysis
 Soil depth= 60 m (approximately 2 times the least
of a G+15 storied structure for static and dynamic analysis
lateral dimension).
in
ordinary moment resisting frame and special moment
Table 1: Material properties of concrete
resisting frame using Seismic coefficient method and
response spectrum method using STAAD.PRO V8i . The
Seismic load calculations of Static and Dynamic analysis M30 grade of concrete used
were done according to IS 1893-2002 part-1. The results of 3 Elastic
Density(kg/m ) Poisson’s ratio
the analyses are compared for different columns under modulus(N/m 2)
axial, bending moment , torsion, and displacement forces. It 2548.420 .20 2.74e10
is observed that the results of equivalent static analysis are
less when compared to that of dynamic response spectra [11]
analysis in OMRF & SMRF values. Table 2: Details of the soil parameters
Mahmoud Yahyai, Masoud Mirtaheri, Mehrab
Mahoutian, Amir Saedi Daryan , Mohammad Amin
Assareh (2008) studied the effect of Soil Structure Type of Density Poisson’s Elastic
Interaction (SSI) on the seismic behaviour of two adjacent soil (kg/m3) ratio modulus N/m 2
32 storied buildings using ANSYS 5.4 and ETABS .The Hard 1600 .30 1.4976e9
SSI effects are examined for variable distance between the
two adjacent buildings considering sandy gravel, Medium 1600 .35 80e6
compacted sandy gravel and soft clay.It is seen that SSI Soft 1600 .40 20e6
effects causes increase in the time period specially for first
mode while the rate of increase decreases for higher modes. 3.2.2 Boundary conditions
The base shear and displacements have also increased
depending on the distance of two adjacent buildings. Fixed base condition

III. Present work  Fixed support at the boundary below raft .

A.Objectives
1. A linear analysis of a G+27 storied RC frame building is
carried out for the following cases:
i) Building with raft foundation i.e. without soil structure
interaction (Fixed base).
ii) Building with raft foundation resting on different soil i.e.
with soil-structure interaction.
2. Seismic coefficient method, Response spectra method,
Pseudo-static method is carried out for the above two cases
and comparative studies are made based on the seismic
responses.
B. Modeling
LUSAS 15.2 is a versatile finite element software program
used in the modeling and linear analysis of the model.
While including soil-structure interaction in the response
spectra analysis Deep Soil 6.1 is used for deconvolution-
reconvolution of earthquake data to obtain the response
spectra at the 60 m depth (top of bedrock) to be applied to
the model.
3.2.1 Geometric modeling
 To ensure complete moment transfer action, a joint is
assigned as a support between shear wall and beam that
fixes the rotation in the Z direction.
Building on raft resting on soil
 Joint assigned as a support between shear wall and
beam that fixes the rotation in the Z direction.
 The bottom of the soil is fixed in X,Y and Z direction
(X, Z on plan ,Y is the vertical axis).
 Along the face parallel to Z-axis the soil is fixed in
X-direction.
 Along the face parallel to X-axis the soil is fixed in
Z-direction.
3.2.3 Finite element modelling
 Beams and columns are modeled as a line using 3D
thick beam elements (BM121).
 Shear wall and raft as thick shell with quadrilateral
(QTS4) element.
 Slab is modeled with both triangular (TTS3) and
quadrilateral (QTS4) thick shell elements.
 Soil is modeled using 3D Solid continuum Element
(HX8M).
 3.2.4 Figures Dynamic analysis were done following IS 1893-2002 Part-
1.

4.1 Seismic coefficient method

It is also called the equivalent static method based on the

formulations given in code of practice which does not
require dynamic analysis but takes into account for the
dynamics of building in an approximate manner considering
one mode in each direction. The procedure is summarized
as follows:
Calculation of seismic weights:
It involves calculation as per clause 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 of IS
1893:2002 Part 1.
Total load at base by hand calculation= 450535.589KN
Figure 1: Building plan From LUSAS load at base =485000 KN
Percentage difference in calculation=7.1%
The hand calculated weights at different floors have been
increased proportionately to conserve the mass difference of
7.1%
Fundamental period:
Lateral load resistance is provided by moment resisting
frames without brick infill panels . Hence, approximate
fundamental natural period (Clause 7.6.1. of IS: 1893 Part
1) is given by
T a  .075 h
.75
(1)
=2.081
Lateral force:
The total lateral force or seismic base shear (V B ) along any
principal direction shall be determined by clause 7.5.3 of
IS 1892:2002
V
B
 A W
h (2)
where,
Ah=maximum possible horizontal seismic co-efficient
Figure 2: Wire mesh view of building based on the fundamental natural period 𝑇 in
the considered direction of vibration.
Sa/g=maximum possible response acceleration co-efficient
VB=Maximum possible base shear
𝐴ℎ for the structure for MCE will be determined
S
by A  Z a
h g

(3)

Type Ah VB (kN) Table 3:

Ah and VB
Fixed 0.1729 83807.990
of building
base
Hard 0.1729 83807.990
with fixed
soil
Medium 0.2353 114120.486
base and
soil
Soft 0.2889 140116.483

incorporating SSI
Figure 3: Building with raft foundation resting on soil

IV. Earthquake analysis

The building is assumed to be located in seismic zone V

and Maximum considered earthquake has been taken into
analysis which considers the most severe earthquake
effects. The Seismic load calculations of Static and
Distribution of Lateral Force:

The base shear ( VB ) computed shall be distributed along

the height of the building as per clause 7.7.1 of IS
1893:2002 (part I)
W h2
i i
Lateral Force at ith level = Q V
i B
 Wi hi2
where,
Qi=Maximum possible lateral force at floor i,
Wi=Seismic weight of floor i,
hi=Height of floor i measured from base
Figure 4: Response spectra at ground level as per IS
4.2 Response spectra method 1893:2002(part I)

It is a linear dynamic method that takes into account the

multiple modes of response of building to indicate the
maximum seismic response of the structure. Computer
analysis can be used to determine these modes for a
structure. For each mode, a response is read from the design
spectrum, based on the modal frequency and the modal
mass, and they are then combined to provide an estimate of
the total response of the structure. Response spectra thus
helps to obtain the peak structural responses in the linear
range, which helps in obtaining lateral forces and shear
forces developed in structure due to earthquakes,
facilitating earthquake-resistant design of structures.

Characterization and simulation of earthquake data Figure 5 : Factored Response spectra at ground level as per
IS 1893:2002
To account for the soil structure interaction effect
deconvolution is carried out to reproduce the specified free-
field ground motion. Earthquake ground motions developed
for seismic analyses in the codes are usually provided as
outcrop motions . However seismic input must be applied at
the base of the model rather than at the ground surface.
Thus the appropriate input motion at depth can be
computed through a ‘deconvolution’ analysis using a 1-D
wave propagation code such as the equivalent linear
program Deep soil 6.1.
To determine the appropriate base input motion applied to
the model:
 The target acceleration spectra compatible time
histories (TARSCTHS) code generates a synthetic time
history of ground acceleration for elastic response
spectra according to the IS 1893:2002 (part I) given in
the input file of the program.
 This synthetic time history response is given as an Figure 6: Deconvoluted Response spectra at top of
input to DEEP SOIL 6.1 as an within motion and the bedrock (60m depth) as per IS 1893:2002(Part I)
output in the form of response spectra is obtained at
the top of rock (60 m below) which is applied at the For checking the correctness of the deconvoluted response
base of structure. spectra ,the time history data obtained at the top of rock in
Deep Soil 6.1 is reconvoluted to obtain time-history data at
The following Figure 4 shows the code specified response the ground surface. This reconvoluted time history data at
spectra which corresponds to free field ground motion. ground surface is used to create reconvoluted response
MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE is taken in spectra which is compared with the factored response
the analysis and thus accordingly multiplying the zone spectra obtained from IS CODE 1893:2002 (Part I) at the
factor only with the elastic response spectra we obtain ground surface.
Figure 5. Now the factored response spectra is deconvoluted
to obtain the response spectra at the top of rock obtained in
Figure 6.
  Defining the Spectral Excitation curve. For this
analysis acceleration versus time-period values are to
used with a damping value of 5%.
 Defining the dynamic excitation type (support motion
in this case), direction, and specify the type of results
required using a CQC (Combined Quadratic
Combination) for spectral response.
 Setting the IMD load case to be active.

4.3 Pseudo static method

It is a combination of the static and dynamic method. The

lateral forces obtained at each floor from the storey shear
Figure 7: Response spectra for hard soil on ground surface distribution of the building from the response spectra
analysis are distributed along the height of the building and
then linear analysis is performed.

1. Results and Discussions

5.1 Variation of natural frequency

The change in the fundamental natural frequency due to the

effect of soil-structure interaction is studied for the 28
storied building on raft foundation resting on hard, medium
and soft soil respectively. From Figure 10, results of the
response spectra analysis it can be noticed the importance
of considering soil structure interaction as it affects the
Figure 8: Response spectra for medium soil on ground natural frequency of the structure and thus its time-period.
surface It is observed that, the inclusion of soil flexibility in
buildings decreases the value of natural frequency. It is
maximum in case of hard soil and minimum in soft soil The
percentage variation in lateral natural frequency
incorporating soil stiffness as compared to fixed base
condition is as tabulated in Table 3.The percentage
variation in natural frequency is maximum for building on
raft resting on soft soil which is about 38.87% when
compared to building with fixed base.

Figure 9: Response spectra for soft soil on ground surface

It is seen the code specified and the reconvoluted response

spectra at the ground surface are almost same as shown by
the above Figure 7, 8 and 9.Thus the use of Deep soil 6.1 is
justified in deconvolution analysis.
The factored MCE response spectra at ground surface
corresponding to hard soil are used for the building with
fixed base. The deconvoluted response spectra for hard, Figure 10: The variation of natural frequency of building
medium, soft soil as in Figure 5 is used for response spectra with fixed base and building resting on different soils.
analysis of the building on raft foundation resting on hard ,
medium , soft soil respectively.
In LUSAS 15.2 a spectral response analysis is carried out
by using IMD (Interactive Modal Dynamics) facility.
Setting up the spectral response results involves the
following steps:
 Table 3: Percentage variation in natural frequency

Building type Soil type Natural frequency %

Without With variation

SSI SSI
Building with
- 0.4399 -
fixed base
Hard 0.4285 2.6

Medium 0.3493 20.59

Building
Soft .2689 38.87

5.2 Comparison of Shear force and Lateral force

distribution with storey level and base shear between
Seismic coefficient, Response spectra and Pseudo-static
method.

The seismic lateral vulnerability of structures is reflected by

the seismic shear force and lateral force distribution of the
structure and essentially of the determination of the base
shear which is one of the main parameter in seismic design.
The following section shows the comparison of the shear
and lateral force distribution of the building with fixed base
and also incorporating soil structure interaction effects.
Figure 11: Shear and lateral force distribution for

Figure 13: Shear and lateral force distribution for building

resting on medium soil

Figure 14: Shear and lateral force distribution for building

resting on soft soil

building with fixed base

Figure 12: Shear and lateral force distribution for building

Figure 15: Comparison of base shear

From Figure 15 it is seen that the base shear of the building

decreases from fixed base to hard soil mainly due to soil
structure interaction as also the seismic data corresponding
to hard soil applied for building with fixed base is that of
the ground surface while the same seismic data
deconvolved through the hard soil to the top of rock is
resting on hard soil applied for the building on raft resting on hard soil. Further
accounting SSI effect it is seen that the base shear increases
with hard to medium to soft soil. The base shear values
obtained by Seismic Coefficient Method are less than the
values obtained by other two methods. From Figure 11,12 ,
13 and 14 it is seen that the lateral force distribution curve
obtained from the three methods overlaps each other in
case of building with fixed base and while including SSI
effect. The shear force distribution curves overlaps each
other for three methods in the lower stories while it keeps
varying as the building height increases, the variation is
maximum in soft soil.
V. Conclusions
 Frequency of vibration of structure decreases with
soil flexibility by the incorporation of SSI when
compared to fixed base model.
 The base shear of the building increases with soil
flexibility from hard to medium to soft soil.
 The lateral force distribution curve obtained from the
three methods overlaps each other in case of building
with fixed base and while including SSI effect.
 The storey shear curve overlaps each other for three
methods in the lower stories while it gradually varies
with upper stories,the variation being maximum in soft
soil.
 The base shear values obtained by Seismic Coefficient
Method are less than the values obtained by Response
spectra and Pseudo-static method showing that design
of earthquake resistant multi-storey structure will be
unsafe by this method. Hence the performance of
Response spectra or pseudo static method analysed
structure is quiet good in resisting the earthquake forces
compared to that of the static analysed structure.
et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications www.ijera.com ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 4,
Issue 11 ( Version 1), November 2014, pp.59-64
[9] Byresh A , Umadevi R , “Effect of Soil Structure
Interaction in RC Framed Building Compared To Fixed
Base”, International Journal of Innovative Research in
Science, Engineering and Technology ,Vol. 5, Issue 8,
August 2016.
[10] Mahmoud Yahyai, Masoud Mirtaheri, Mehrab
Mahoutian, Amir Saedi Daryan and Mohammad Amin
Assareh,“Soil Structure Interaction between Two
Adjacent Buildings under Earthquake Load” ,American
J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences 1 (2): 121-125,
2008 ISSN 1941-7020 .
[11] APPC-Soil properties ,SK Kong-Academia-edu
https://www.academia.edu/8149496/APPC-Soil
properties
[12] Konakalla Ramesh, “Characteristics of a 28-storied
building under dynamic earthquake loading including
SSI effect”
[13] L.H media ,E.M Dawson, ‘Earthquake deconvolution
for FLAC,’, 4TH International FLAC Symposium on
Numerical Modelling in Geomechanics -2006-Hart &
Varona (eds)Paper :04-10.
[14] Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrove, M.I., Harmon, J.A.,
Groholski, D.R., Phillips, C.A., and Park, D.(2016)
“DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual”.

References

[1] IS: 1893 (Part – 1) – 2002 - Code of Practice for

Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of
Indian Standards.
[2] B.S TARANATH , “Structural Analysis and Design of
Tall buildings” McGraw-Hill book Company,1988.
[3] Agarwal. P. and Shirkhande. M., 2006 “Earthquake
resistant Design of Structures” Printice- Hall of India
Private Ltd. New Delhi, India.
[4] TARSCTH-User’s Manual, Version 1.0 developed by
Engineering Seismology Laboratory (ESL) at the State
University of New Work at Buffalo.
[5] T.S Sarma, Design of R.C.C Buildings using STAAD
PRO V8I with Indian examples, Static and Dynamic
methods
[6] LUSAS(2016): Modeller Reference Manual Version
15.2 LUSAS, ISSUE 1, Kingston upon
Thames,Surrey,United Kingdom.
[7] Venkatesh M. B, R. D. Deshpande,” Analysis of R.C.
building frame with raft foundation considering soil
structure interaction ” International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET) , Volume: 04
Issue: 05 ,May -2017.
[8] E. Pavan Kumar, A. Naresh, M. Nagajyothi, M.
Rajasekhar,“Earthquake Analysis of Multi Storied
Residential Building - A Case Study”,E. Pavan Kumar