Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Natural period of reinforced concrete building frames on pile foundation T

considering seismic soil-structure interaction effects
Nishant Sharma, Kaustubh Dasgupta , Arindam Dey
⁎

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The magnitude of seismic forces induced within a building, during an earthquake, depends on its natural period
Seismic soil-structure interaction of vibration. The traditional approach is to assume the base of the building to be fixed for the estimation of the
RC buildings natural period and ignore the influence of soil-structure interaction (SSI) citing it to be beneficial. However, for
Pile foundation buildings resting on soft soils, the soil-foundation system imparts flexibility at the base of the building and it is
Time history analysis
imperative for SSI effects to exist that may prove to be detrimental. Presence of SSI effects modifies the seismic
Natural period
ANN
forces induced within the building, which is dependent on the change in its fixed base natural period.
Predictive relationship Expressions for determination of the natural period of a structural system under the influence of SSI (effective
natural period) are available in the literature. Although useful and made applicable to all types of foundation
systems, these expressions are developed either using simplified models or are applicable to shallow foundations
and may not be suitable to all types of structural-foundation systems in general. This article investigates the
influence of seismic soil-structure interaction on the natural period of RC building frame supported on pile
foundations. Detailed finite element modelling of an exhaustive number of models, encompassing various
parameters of the structure, soil, and the pile foundation has been carried out in OpenSEES to study the effect of
SSI on the natural period of the RC building frame. The effect of various parameters on the natural period of the
building frame under SSI is investigated and the results have been used to develop an ANN architecture model
for the estimation of the effective natural period of RC building frame supported by pile foundation. Garson’s
algorithm is used to conduct sensitivity analysis for examining the importance of various parameters that govern
the determination of effective natural period. A predictive relationship for obtaining the effective natural period
has been proposed using ANN architecture in the form of a modification factor that is to be applied on the fixed
base natural period, and which depends on various input parameters of the building frame-pile-soil system. A
comparison of the proposed relationship with those available in literature demonstrates its usefulness and ap­
plicability to RC building frames on pile foundations.

1. Introduction
During an earthquake shaking, the magnitude of seismic forces in­
duced within the building structure depends on its natural period of
vibration (Tn). This is also reflected in the design codes of various
countries. For example, the seismic design of RC framed buildings,
using the Indian seismic code [1], requires the estimation of the design
lateral loads that depends on the natural period (Tn) of the building.
The conventional approach is to assume the base of the building to be
fixed for the estimation of the natural period. For buildings resting on
rocky or hard strata, wherein the soil-foundation system imparts high
degree of restraint, this assumption holds good. However, for the
buildings resting on softer soils, the soil-foundation system imparts
some amount of flexibility at the base and the building response is af­
fected by the foundation soil medium (this phenomenon is known as
Soil-Structure Interaction and is abbreviated as SSI). Under compliant
soil-foundation conditions, the natural period of the building is in­
creased as compared to that obtained by assuming the building to be
fixed at the base. For the same structure, a variation in foundation-soil
condition would result in the modification of the natural period and
thus lead to a change in the seismic force levels. Available studies [2,3]
have highlighted the SSI effects (increase in natural period) to be det­
rimental towards seismic safety of structures. In this regard, the esti­
mation of the natural period of the structure under the influence of SSI
has been one of the focus areas as far as the subject matter is concerned.
Veletsos and Meek [4] proposed analytical expression for obtaining

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kd@iitg.ac.in (K. Dasgupta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.010
Received 3 November 2019; Received in revised form 2 June 2020; Accepted 5 July 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Sharma, et al.
Fig. 1. Representative illustration of the SSI model analyzed in the present study.
effective period of a system with SSI effects (TSSI). The same expression
has been adopted by the seismic codes, ATC 3-06 [5] and UBC [6], for
the structures supported on rigid mat foundations. Gazetas [7] pro­
posed semi-empirical relation for TSSI that is an improvement over the
work carried out by Veletsos and Meek [4]. Maravas et al. [8] also
proposed rigorous analytical solutions for obtaining TSSI for simple
Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) structures on pile foundation. Kumar
and Prakash [9] proposed semi-empirical relationships for the struc­
tures founded on pile foundation. Rovithis et al. [10] introduced the
notion of pseudo-natural frequency for SDOF structures supported on
single pile embedded in homogenous viscoelastic soil. More recently,
Deng et al. [11] and Medina et al. [12] proposed regression models for
evaluating the effective natural period of shear-type structures (idea­
lized as SDOF systems) supported on pile group foundation resting on
viscoelastic homogenous and inhomogeneous soils, respectively. Al­
though these studies have focussed on pile group foundations, however
the studies are more appropriate for structures with simple configura­
tions supported on group of piles possessing square grid arrangement
connected by a rigid pile cap, thereby behaving as a single unit. The
relationships developed in the past incorporate the following simplifi­
cations: (i) idealized SDOF oscillator, (ii) shallow rigid mat foundation
or single lumped foundation and (iii) use of equivalent springs to re­
present pile foundation stiffness (more useful for pile groups behaving
as a single unit and exhibiting a uniform rocking behaviour). The past
researches have focused on obtaining TSSI based on the simplifying
assumptions, primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the evaluation of the
stiffness of the complex foundation systems (viz., spread foundation,
soil-pile group foundation, soil-pile raft foundation, etc.) is a tedious
task and that the exact solutions are difficult to obtain. Secondly, the
complex interaction behavior of the individual piles in a group is not
well understood and established. In real life situations, buildings are
MDOF systems for which simplified representation of foundation soil
system may not be proper. This is because pile groups under the col­
umns at different locations would behave independently, thereby ex­
hibiting non-uniform rocking. Therefore, there is a need for developing
a relationship for the estimation of the natural period of building under
the influence of SSI (TSSI) that could account for the complex soil-
foundation behavior. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have the
ability to recognize complex relationships between the input and the
output parameters and have been used widely in the various fields of
civil engineering, including studies involving static and dynamic soil-
1595
Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612
structure interaction. Acharyya and Dey [13,14] employed ANN to
study and predict bearing capacity of footings on horizontal and sloping
grounds. Momeni et al. [15] employed ANN to evaluate pile bearing
capacity, while Das and Basudhar [16] employed the same to evaluate
the lateral load capacity of the pile foundations. Pala et al. [17] de­
monstrated that ANN could be used for the solution of dynamic SSI
problems of buildings.
Multistoried RC framed buildings comprise the most common ty­
pology of buildings used for various purposes. Pile foundations are in­
variably used as the foundation system wherever the soil is weak or
soft. Hence, it becomes important to assess the natural period of RC
building frames supported on pile foundations. The present article in­
vestigates the effect of SSI on the natural period of RC building frame
supported by pile foundation. Detailed finite element modelling, car­
ried out using OpenSEES [18], provides an accurate estimation of the
effective natural period (TSSI) as compared to the simplified models
with SDOF system and foundation considered as single lumped piles or
equivalent springs. The effect of SSI on RC building frames has been
studied for various configurations of the superstructure and soil-pile
foundation systems. Further, an ANN model has been trained to develop
a relationship for the modification factor (MF) useful in predicting the
effective natural period (TSSI) of RC building frames supported on pile
foundation. Comparison of the proposed relationship with those avail­
able in literature demonstrates its usefulness and applicability to RC
building frames on pile foundations.
2. Numerical modelling and parametric case studies
Fig. 1 shows the illustration of the SSI model considered in the
present study. The numerical models of the SSI systems (building, pile
foundation, and soil medium) were created and analyzed in OpenSEES
using the direct modelling approach. A brief description of the model­
ling details is provided in the following subsections.
2.1. Soil domain
The basic properties of the considered soil types are shown in
Table 1. Four types of soil representative of different categories of site
conditions are taken, i.e., loose sand (SS), medium sand (MS), medium
dense sand (MDS) and dense sand (DS). A uniform soil domain depth of
30 m is considered, as per the recommendation of ATC 40 [19], which
N. Sharma, et al.
Table 1
Basic properties and constitutive parameters of the soils used in the present study
Type of soil ρ (kg/m3) φ (°) ν vs (m/s)
Loose (SS) 1700 29 0.33
Medium (MS) 1900 33 0.33
Medium-Dense (MDS) 2000 37 0.35
Dense (DS) 2100 40 0.35
Note: φ is the friction angle, ν is the Poisson’s ratio, vs = G/ is the average shear wave velocity, Gr and γmax is the reference low strain shear modulus and peak
shear strain respectively at the reference pressure pr = 80 kPa, d is defined by the relationship G = Gr (p / pr )d , p is the instantaneous effective confinement, G is the
stress dependent shear modulus and ΦT is the phase transformation angle.
is modelled using four-noded quadrilateral elements with four gauss
integration points and bilinear isoparametric formulation. The non­
linear characteristics of the soil are simulated using pressure dependent
constitutive behavior [20] wherein nested yield surface criterion [21] is
employed for plastic behavior. The shear modulus of the soil varies
parabolically with depth as per the relationship shown in Table 1 and
the value of shear wave velocity (vs) shown is the average value of the
soil layer. The largest size of the soil element at a particular depth is
determined using the relationship prescribed by Kuhlemeyer and
Lysmer [22] as shown:
l max = 0.125 fmax (Gr 1)0.25
(1)
where, lmax is the maximum size of the soil elements, fmax is the value of
the maximum frequency of the input motion (typically considered as
15 Hz), Gr is the reference low strain shear modulus of the soil specified
at the reference mean effective confining pressure of 80 kPa, and ρ is
the mass density of the soil. This criterion enforces the mesh dis­
cretization to vary, in the vertical direction, such that the elements
possess a fine size at the surface and coarse at the bedrock level. In the
horizontal direction, the mesh size is governed by the geometry of the
structure and pile locations. Finer discretization of the elements was
used near the structure and gradually coarsened towards the bound­
aries. The mobilization of gravity and inertial loads has been applied
with the help of bulk density (Table 1). Similar modelling approach, to
simulate nonlinear SSI response of different structures, has been suc­
cessfully used by past researchers [23,24]. For the purpose of the pre­
sent study, the water table is assumed to lie at a depth of 30 m from the
ground surface and is not considered for any influence on the dynamic
SSI study.
2.2. Building-foundation system
In the present study, two-dimensional RC building frame supported
on pile foundation is considered, as shown in Fig. 1. The floor-to-floor
height and bay width are taken to be 3 m. Fig. 2 shows the details of the
various building configurations considered. Four different storey
heights have been considered with 3 stories (9 m), 6 stories (18 m), 9
stories (27 m) and 12 stories (36 m). For each height of the building
frame, four configurations of structural width having 3 bays (9 m), 5
bays (15 m), 9 bays (27 m) and 15 bays (45 m) are considered. Each
structural configuration is to be rested on four different soil conditions
(viz., SS, MS, MDS and DS) for which the superstructure design is the
same and only the foundation design is modified as per the soil type.
Moreover, for a particular structure-soil combination, three different
arrangements of pile foundation are considered. For e.g., a 3 storey 3
bay structure resting on loose sand (SS) is supported by pile foundations
under the columns having (a) single pile, (b) a pile group of two, and (c)
a pile group of three.
For the design of the superstructure, gravity loads have been esti­
mated as per the provisions of IS 875: Part 2 (1987) [25] considering
the intended use of the building for residential purpose. The assumed
superimposed dead load and live load are considered as 3 kN/m2. To
1596
Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612
Gr (kPa) γmax d ΦT (°)
4
193 5.5 × 10 0.1 0.5 29
212 7.5 × 104 0.1 0.5 27
234 1.0 × 105 0.1 0.5 27
257 1.3 × 105 0.1 0.5 27
represent the load of brick walls, 5 kN/m of uniformly distributed load
is considered to act on the beams of the frame. The lateral loading on
the superstructure is considered as per IS 1893: Part 1 (2016) [1]. The
structure is assumed to be located in Zone V as per the seismic zoning
map of India [1] and the design fixed base natural period of the su­
perstructure is obtained using the following expression:
Tn = 0.075H 0.75 (2)
where Tn is the design fixed base natural period and H is the height of
the frame building. Tn is utilized to estimate the design acceleration
coefficient and subsequently the base shear (Note: the values of the
factors considered are Zone factor = 0.36; Importance factor = 1 and
Response reduction factor = 5). The estimated gravity and seismic
loads at the bottom level of the superstructure are used for the design of
foundation under the column members. The grades of concrete (fck) and
rebar (fy) used for the design of all concrete members in the present
study are M30 and Fe500, respectively, and the elastic modulus of
concrete is obtained as Ec = 5000×(fck)0.5 MPa [26]. The super­
structure is supported on pile foundations and the design of the struc­
ture-foundation system has been carried out with the help of IS 456
(2000) [26], IS 13920 (2016) [27] and IS 2911: Part1/Sec 1 (2010)
[28].
The details of the structural member sizes for the frame building are
given in Table 2. For a particular height of the building frame, the di­
mensions of the frame sections are kept to be the same for different
structural widths. The details of the pile foundations are given in
Table 3. For piles in a group, the distance between adjacent piles is kept
to be three times the diameter of the individual pile, as per the code
suggested practice. Elastic beam-column elements, having two trans­
lational DOFs and one rotational DOF, have been used to model the
frame and pile members of the structure-foundation system. Perfectly
bonded interface is considered to connect the pile foundation with the
soil nodes. The horizontal inertial forces are simulated in the structure
by means of lumping the mass and loads of the structure at the nodes of
the frame and pile members.
2.3. Soil domain boundaries
Radiation damping has been accounted for by modelling Lysmer-
Kuhlemeyer (L-K) viscous dashpots [29] at the horizontal and vertical
boundaries. L-K boundaries ensure that the seismic waves are prevented
from being reflected back into the soil medium. Viscous dashpots along
the horizontal and the vertical directions are assigned on the vertical
boundaries having dashpot coefficients as Cp = ρvpA (where A is the
tributary area of the boundary) and Cs = ρvsA, respectively. The pri­
mary wave velocity (vp) is obtained from the shear wave velocity and
Poisson’s ratio (ν) as vp = {2vs (1 )/(1 2 )}0.5 . At the horizontal
base boundary, dashpots in the horizontal direction only have been
employed, having dashpot coefficient as Cs = ρvsA. To simulate the
seismic input in the form of vertically propagating shear waves,
equivalent nodal shear forces are applied at the bedrock level. Based on
the theory proposed by Joyner [30], Zhang et al. [31] provided the
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Fig. 2. Details of the RC building frame configurations considered in the present study.

expression for equivalent nodal shear forces as follows:
F (x , t ) = Cs u (x , t ) + 2Cs ui (t + x / vs )
where, ui (t + x / vs ) is the velocity of incident motion, u (x , t ) is the
velocity of the soil particle motion, and Cs is the coefficient of dashpot.
The first term in Eq. (3) is the force generated by the dashpot, while the
second term is the applied equivalent nodal force that is proportional to
the velocity of the incident motion. The bedrock mass is assumed to be
homogenous, linear elastic, undamped and semi-infinite half-space re­
gion. The lateral extent for each SSI system is fixed based on the study
(3)
conducted by Sharma et al. [32]. This ensured that the extent of near-
field effects of soil-structure interaction reduces with increasing dis­
tance from the pile. Since the soil is modelled with the aid of pressure
dependent constitutive behavior having damping characteristics, the
interaction effects result in the development of maximum shear strain at
the pile-soil interface with an outward decreasing gradient. This aspect

Table 2
Details of the frame members for various building configurations
Storey Level 3 Storey 6 Storey 9 Storey 12 Storey

Column Beam Column Beam Column Beam Column Beam

Up to 3 300 × 300 200 × 280 350 × 350 200 × 350 450 × 450 250 × 400 500 × 500 250 × 450
3 to 6 – – 350 × 350 200 × 350 400 × 400 250 × 400 450 × 450 250 × 450
6 to 9 – – – – 350 × 350 250 × 350 400 × 400 250 × 400
9 to 12 – – – – – – 400 × 400 200 × 350

Note: All dimensions of the frame members are in millimetre (mm)

1597
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table 3
Details of the pile groups as used in the present study
No. of Stories Loose Soil Medium soil Med. dense soil Dense soil
SS MS MDS DS

Pile length, Pile dia., Pile length, Pile dia., Pile length, Pile dia., Pile length, Pile dia.,
lp (m) dp (mm) lp (m) dp (mm) lp (m) dp (mm) lp (m) dp (mm)

Pile group of three

3 11.0 300 7.0 300 6.5 250 3.5 250
6 12.5 400 7.5 400 5.5 350 4.5 300
9 15.5 450 10.0 450 6.0 400 5.0 350
12 16.5 500 10.5 500 6.5 450 5.0 400
Pile group of two
3 12.0 350 8.0 350 6.0 300 3.5 300
6 12.0 500 9.5 450 6.0 400 5.0 350
9 15.0 550 12.0 500 7.5 450 5.5 400
12 16.5 600 10.0 600 6.5 450 5.0 400
Single pile
3 15.0 450 9.0 450 6.0 400 4.5 350
6 16.0 600 13.0 550 7.5 500 5.5 450
9 15.5 750 14.0 650 8.5 600 7.0 500
12 18.0 800 16.0 700 12.5 600 7.5 550

is automatically taken care of through finite element modelling of the
piles embedded in the soil domain. The entire soil domain is considered
spatially invariable.
3. Method of analysis
The fixed base natural period of the building frame is modified by
considering the presence of the soil-pile foundation system. The flex­
ibility of the soil-pile foundation system depends on the confinement
action imparted by the soil to the piles. Sandy soils are pressure-de­
pendent wherein the shear modulus at any particular depth is a func­
tion of the confining pressure at that depth. For imposition of appro­
priate confining action to the piles, proper simulation of static stresses
within the soil is essential [24,31]. On assignment of Lysmer-Kuhle­
meyer boundaries, the confinement action is lost under gravity loading
condition. This is because, for assignment of L-K boundaries, the dis­
placement restraints at the soil boundary nodes are to be removed,
thereby allowing the soil nodes to deform at the boundary, which in­
hibits the development of proper confinement action. To develop a
proper confining state of stress within the soil, stage wise gravity ana­
lysis is carried out prior to conducting dynamic analysis of the building
frames under the influence of SSI. A schematic of the stage wise gravity
analysis is shown in Fig. 3. At each stage, the boundary condition of the
SSI model is modified and gradually the boundary conditions required
for dynamic SSI analysis are achieved.
The first stage (stage 1) corresponds to the state wherein the system
is analyzed for gravity loading with the soil under elastic condition. The
base of the SSI system is restrained both horizontally and vertically,
while the vertical boundaries are restrained only in the horizontal di­
rection. Keeping the soil material model as elastic, gravity analysis is
performed in a single step to achieve equilibrium of the SSI system. In
stage 2, the constitutive model of the soil is made to behave plastically
while keeping the boundary conditions to be the same as those at the
end of stage 1. Iteratively, the model is brought to equilibrium and the
horizontal and vertical reactions developed at the boundary restraints
are noted. During stage 3, the horizontal restraints of the vertical
boundaries are removed and the corresponding reactions (recorded at
the end of stage 2) are applied. Simultaneously, horizontal and vertical
L-K boundary conditions are applied to the vertical boundaries of the
SSI model. Subsequently, the model is iteratively brought into equili­
brium under gravity loading. In Stage 4, the horizontal restraints at the
base are removed and the corresponding reactions are applied, along
with the assignment of the basal L-K boundaries in the horizontal di­
rection. Subsequently, the model is iteratively brought into equilibrium.

Fig. 3. Procedure of the stage-wise static gravity analysis as adopted in the present study.

1598
N. Sharma, et al.
Fig. 4. Seismic input motion characteristics. (a) white noise time history, and (b) Fourier amplitude spectrum.
At this stage when all the boundaries have been incorporated, the SSI
model does not have any horizontal displacement constraint. This
renders the stiffness matrix to be singular. Under such circumstance,
eigenvalue analysis does not show appropriate results, as there is a
display of rigid body displacements for the first mode. Additionally, the
natural period estimates by eigenvalue analysis are influenced by the
size of the soil domain considered. For e.g., a building frame resting on
soil would exhibit a different natural period if the horizontal extent of
the soil domain is changed from 150 m to 200 m or if the depth of the
soil domain is modified from 30 m to 40 m. This is so because the
stiffness matrix and mass matrix of the SSI model are modified on
changing the extent of soil domain thus producing a different value of
the natural period. However, the response of the structural system
under soil-pile flexibility should depend on the confinement action
provided by the soil in the vicinity of the pile foundations. Therefore, to
obtain the natural period of the structure under the influence of SSI,
time history analysis is performed.
Once the boundary conditions have been successfully applied, the
SSI model is ready to be subjected to lateral vibrations that are applied
as equivalent nodal shear forces at the base of the FE model. The SSI
model is subjected to very low amplitude excitation to restrict the soil
material from developing nonlinearities [31]. In addition, it is to be
ensured that the selected motion is capable of exciting the natural
frequencies of the structure located within the SSI system. For this
purpose, white noise of very small PGA level (0.005 m/s2) is selected as
the input motion. Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b) show the time history and the
frequency spectra of the input motion respectively. The solution of the
time history analysis is obtained by solving the equation of motion of
the SSI model shown in Eq. (4):
[M ] {u¨ (t )} + [C ] {u (t )} + [K ] {u (t )} = {F (t )} + {Fv}
where [M ], [C ] and [K ] are the global mass, damping and stiffness ma­
trices of the SSI system respectively; {u¨} , {u} and {u} represent the nodal
acceleration, velocity and displacement respectively; {F } represents the
input nodal shear force vector; and {Fv} is the force vector assigned at
the viscous boundaries during the staged gravity analysis. The time-step
integration scheme adopted is Newmark-β method considering constant
variation of acceleration over the time step that renders the scheme
unconditionally stable, and the initial condition of the SSI model is
considered to be ‘at rest’. The structural response of the SSI system is
obtained and the natural period is identified by analyzing it in the
frequency domain. The dominant peaks in the Fourier Amplitude Ratio
(FAR) spectrum are indicative of the natural frequencies of the SSI
system.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effective natural period of RC building frame
Prior to analyzing the coupled soil-pile structure system, the struc­
tural configurations and the free-field soil system are separately
Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612
analyzed to check the adequacy of the adopted methodology in pre­
dicting their natural periods. Fig. 5(a) and 5(b) show the FAR (Fourier
Amplitude Ratio) spectrum of the fixed-base acceleration response ob­
tained at the roof level of 6-storey 5-bay and 12-storey 5-bay building
frames, respectively. The natural frequencies corresponding to the first
three modes have been identified, and its comparison with that ob­
tained from the conventional eigenvalue analysis is shown in Fig. 5(c)
and 5(d). It can be seen that a very good match is existent between the
results from both the analysis procedures.
A similar methodology is applied to the free-field soil domain, and
the FAR spectrum of the acceleration response at the surface is obtained
corresponding to SS, MS, MDS, and DS, as shown in Fig. 6(a)-6(d), re­
spectively, wherein the natural frequencies of the free-field soil domain
have been identified. Theoretical expressions are available in the lit­
erature [33] for obtaining the fundamental natural period of a free-field
soil domain, as shown in Eq. (5):
Hs
Ts = 4.48
vsH (5)
where Ts is the fundamental period of the soil layer, vsH is the shear
wave velocity of the soil domain at the depth Hs (bottom of the soil
deposit). The above expression is applicable for the soil layers having a
parabolic variation of increasing shear modulus with depth [33]. Using
the expression, the fundamental natural period of the free-field soil
domain is obtained for the different soil types and are compared with
those obtained by the time history analysis of the finite element (FE)
model (Fig. 7). As observed, a good agreement is attained between the
two approaches. With these comparisons, it can be said that the
adopted methodology for determining the effective natural period of
the SSI system can be convincingly applied for further rigorous ana­
(4)
lyses.
The SSI system is subjected to the considered white noise motion to
induce dynamic excitations and the acceleration response at the roof
level is obtained. The response is analysed in the frequency domain and
the effective natural period (TSSI) of each RC building frame is obtained
corresponding to the different soil types. Fig. 8 shows an example
wherein the fundamental natural frequency of a 6-storey 5-bay building
frame, supported by pile foundations, is obtained for the different soil
conditions (viz., SS, MS, MDS, and DS). The effective natural period is
then estimated from the effective natural frequency. Likewise, the ef­
fective natural periods of the various configurations are obtained and
are used for further discussion of results.
4.2. Parameters influencing SSI effects
This section discusses the parameters that govern the change in the
fixed base natural period of the RC building frame due to SSI effects.
The various building frames considered have been analyzed with the
base as fixed to obtain the fixed base natural period (TF). The same
frames, along with the various soil-pile configurations, are analyzed to
obtain their respective effective natural periods (TSSI). The amount of
1599
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

400 160
0.95 0.70 3.19
320
120
240 4.94

FAR

FAR
80
160 1.87
2.88
40
80

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)

1.2 1.6
Eigen Analysis Eigen Analysis
0.9 FE Analysis 1.2 FE Analysis
Natural Period (s)

Natural Period (s)

0.6 0.8

0.3 0.4

0.0 0.0
1 2 3 1 2 3
M ode M ode
(c) (d)
Fig. 5. Fourier amplitude ratio spectrum of the roof-level response and the comparative of natural frequencies from eigenvalue and finite element (FE) analysis for:
(a), (c) 6-storey 5-bay building frame; and (b), (d) 12-storey 5-bay building frame.

150 200
7.34 5.49
125 160
100 4.86 8.12
120
9.33
FAR
FAR

75
2.04 80
50
2.23
25 40 10.19

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)

250 250
6.18
200 200 6.83

150 150 11.77

FAR

FAR

100 11.03 100

8.96 2.81
50 2.58 50 9.76

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(c) (d)
Fig. 6. Fourier amplitude ratio spectrum of the free field response of soil domain for soil types (a) SS, (b) MS, (c) MDS, and (d) DS.

change in the natural period (from TF to TSSI) is a measure of the SSI system. A building frame is characterized by its natural period under
effect on the system and is quantified in terms of the modification factor fixed base condition (TF). Depending on the structural configuration
(MF) as shown in Eq. (6). (height and width), TF may vary which will in turn influence MF.
Fig. 9(a) and 9(b) show the influence of the width of building frame on
TSSI MF under different soil conditions for short (3 storey) and tall (12
MF =
TF (6) storey) frames respectively. It can be observed that for short frames (3
storied) increasing the width from 3 bays to 15 bays increases TF from
Higher MF indicates greater SSI effect on the natural period of the
0.70 s to 0.73 s. The variation of MF for narrow (3 bay) frame under
structure, thus signifying greater influence of the soil-pile foundation

1600
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

0.7 highest (higher MF) for soft soil (SS) and are reduced for relatively
0.6
Theoretical stiffer soil conditions (MS, MDS and DS). Increase in the width of the
frame results in an increase or decrease in the fixed base natural period
FE Analysis
0.5 (TF) depending on the frame height. Increase in the width of the frame
Natural Period (s)

causes an addition of mass and stiffness to the structural system. In

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
SS MS MDS
Soil Type
Fig. 7. Comparison of natural periods for free field response of soil domain
obtained theoretically and FE analysis considering different soil types.
different soil conditions is about 1.10 (SS) to 1.05 (DS) and that for
wider (15 bay) frame is about 1.16 (SS) to 1.06 (DS). For taller frames
(12 storied) increasing the width from 3 bays to 15 bays decreases TF
from 1.47 s to 1.41 s and the variation of MF for narrow (3 bay) frames
under different soil condition is about 1.22 (SS) to 1.11 (DS) while that
for wider (15 bay) frames is about 1.15 (SS) to 1.05 (DS). Similarly,
Fig. 10(a) and 10(b) show the influence of the height of building frame
on MF under different soil conditions for narrow (3 bay) and wider (15
bay) configurations respectively. For narrow frames (3 bay) on in­
creasing the height from 3 stories to 12 stories, TF increases from 0.70 s
to 1.47 s. The variation of MF for short (3 storey) frames under different
soil condition is about 1.11 (SS) to 1.05 (DS) and that for taller (12
storied) frames is about 1.22 (SS) to 1.10 (DS). For wider frames (15
bay) increasing the height from 3 stories to 12 stories increases TF from
0.73 s to 1.41 s. The variation of MF for short (3 storey) frames under
different soil condition is about 1.16 (SS) to 1.06 (DS) while that for
taller (12 storey) frames is about 1.15 (SS) to 1.05 (DS). It can be ob­
served that for any particular structural configuration, SSI effects are
short frames, being inherently stiff in nature, an increase in the width
results in the addition of mass to be dominant, thereby causing the
wider frames to be more flexible as compared to the narrow ones. Taller
frames are by nature flexible and an increase in the width results in the
addition of stiffness to be dominant; consequently, the wider frames
turn out to be stiffer as compared to the narrow ones. SSI effects are
DS observed to be marginally greater for frames with extreme configura­
tion (e.g. very short and wide or very tall and narrow frames). In­
creasing the height of the frames (corresponding to a fixed width) re­
sults in the system becoming more flexible. Moreover, for narrow
frames, the SSI effects increase with greater height; however, for wider
frames SSI effects are comparable corresponding to the different
heights.
Apart from the structural configuration, the soil-foundation char­
acteristics also influence MF. Corresponding to a particular soil condi­
tion, the column members of the RC building frame can be supported by
pile foundations that may consist of a single large diameter pile or
multiple piles of smaller diameter. For the same structure-soil condi­
tion, this may result in a variation of MF. Fig. 11(a) and 11(b) respec­
tively show the variation of MF under different pile foundation con­
figurations of short (3 storied 15 bay) and tall (12 storied 15 bay)
building frames for various soil conditions. As observed, for the dif­
ferent pile foundation configurations, MF increases as the properties of
the soil get weaker. Moreover, the building frames supported by group
of 3 piles and 2 piles exhibit slight reduction in MF as compared to the
building frame supported on single piles. This is because piles in a
group are more effective in arresting rocking behavior, as compared to
the single piles, and impart additional rocking stiffness under the col­
umns due to group action. Hence, MF is relatively larger for structures
supported by single piles as compared to the piles in a group.

120 300

100 0.90 250

0.91
80 200
FAR

FAR

60 150

40 100

20 50

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

(a) (b)

180 120
0.92 0.94
150 100

120 80
FAR

FAR

90 60

60 40

30 20

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

(c) (d)
Fig. 8. Identification of the fundamental natural frequency of 6-storey 5-bay building frame supported by pile foundation resting on (a) SS, (b) MS, (c) MDS, and (d)
DS soils.

1601
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Fig. 9. Variation of MF with number of bays for (a) 3 storied, and (b) 12 storied building frames.

Fig. 10. Variation of MF with number of stories for building frame with (a) 3 bays, and (b) 15 bays.

Fig. 11. Variation of MF with the shear wave velocity of soil for (a) 3 storied, and (b) 12 storied building frames.

Fig. 12. Variation of MF with pile length for (a) 3 storied, and (b) 12 storied building frames.

1602
N. Sharma, et al.
Fig. 13. Variation of MF with SH for (a) 3 storied, and (b) 12 storied building frames with shear wall.
For a particular foundation configuration, the type of soil governs
the design of foundation. In the present study, as the soil properties
become weaker, the size of the pile foundation increases in diameter
(dp) and/or length (lp) as shown in Table 3. The properties of the pile
foundation in conjunction with the soil determine the flexibility of the
soil-pile foundation system. Fig. 12(a) and 12(b) show the variation of
MF with average length and corresponding average diameter of pile for
short (3 storey) and tall (12 storey) building frames respectively. It is
observed that MF increases with increase in pile length and diameter.
Increase in both pile length and diameter indicates weak soil conditions
that ultimately leads to greater soil-pile foundation flexibility (higher
MF). Although the size of the pile has been segregated in terms of length
and diameter, however, the two parameters are correlated through pile
capacity. Therefore, a dimensionless parameter, SH = (lp/ dp)(Ep/ Es ) 0.25
has been used as a measure of pile foundation flexibility [10], where Ep
is the elastic modulus of pile and Es is the elastic modulus of soil at a
depth corresponding to the diameter of the piles. Stiffer piles possess
smaller SH while flexible piles possess higher SH. Fig. 13(a) and 13(b)
show the variation of MF versus average SH of the pile foundation for
various widths corresponding to short (3 storey) and tall (12 storey)
frames respectively. It is observed that for all structural configurations,
the effect of SSI increases with the flexibility of piles (MF increases).
Moreover, the influence of pile foundation flexibility on short (3 storey)
frame is greater for wider (15 bay) configuration while that for taller
(12 storey) frame is greater for narrow (3 bay) configuration. The re­
sults discussed herein are corresponding to the building frame system
wherein the columns are supported by pile group of three. Other con­
figurations of pile foundation show similar trends and hence are not
discussed for the sake of brevity.
5. Development of ANN model
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are computing systems that are
inspired by the biological neural network. ANNs have been widely
applied in the various fields of civil engineering, including studies in­
volving static and dynamic soil-structure interaction. They are capable
of learning and modelling nonlinear and complex relationships between
the input and the output parameters. ANN is particularly useful for the
datasets that do not follow a particular mathematical pattern (or in
other words, datasets that are intricately difficult and complex to de­
code). ANNs do not impose any restriction on the input variable (such
as the requirement of the input data conforming to a particular dis­
tribution) and its ability to generalize and infer relationships for unseen
data is especially advantageous. Additionally, the mathematical models
developed using ANN are not overly complex, rather, they can be ex­
pressed with the help of multiple sets of simple relationships which are
easy to code. In the present study, an artificial neural network archi­
tecture is developed for the prediction of the modification factor (MF)
and further details have been outlined in the following subsections.
1603
Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612
5.1. ANN model architecture
In the present study, an artificial neural network architecture is
developed for the prediction of the modification factor, MF. The ANN
model consists of input, output and hidden layers with various numbers
of nodes in each layer depending on the problem being addressed.
Although there have been studies where multiple hidden layers were
used, however, it has been noted in many past studies that an ANN
model with single layer is capable of providing good predictive re­
lationships [34–37]. Levenberg-Marquardt learning rule is im­
plemented for the training of the neurons in the hidden layer. It is a
feed-forward back-propagation algorithm, which is the most widely
prevalent technique possessing a suitable prediction capability [36,38].
The transfer function used in the input-to-hidden and hidden-to-output
layers is a ‘tan sigmoid’ as it can accurately represent the biological
behavior of neurons. The development of the ANN model has been
carried out in MATLAB v2016a [39]. The input and output data are
preprocessed by normalizing using Eq. (7):
2 (X Xmin )
Xn = 1
(Xmax Xmin ) (7)
where Xn is the normalized value, Xmax and Xmin are the maximum and
minimum values of the variable X, respectively. This ensures that the
data lies within a range of −1 to 1, thus ensuring equal weightage to
each variable during the modelling phase.
The input parameters considered are corresponding to the soil, pile
foundations and the building frame properties. The governing para­
meter for soil considered is the shear modulus (Gsoil). The inputs cor­
responding to pile foundations are average diameter of individual pile
(dp), average length of individual pile (lp), and the number of piles (np).
The structural system can be described using four input parameters
namely the effective first mode modal stiffness (K*), effective first mode
modal mass (M*), height (H), and width (W) of the building frame. The
output considered is the modification factor (MF) and has already been
discussed in Section 4.2. The selection of optimum number of hidden
neurons is essential for ensuring a good performance from the adopted
model. Convergence study is conducted to obtain the optimum number
of neurons in the hidden layer such that the error associated with the
estimated output is minimum. The quantification of the error is re­
presented as shown:
n
(MFsimulated MF predicted ) 2
MSE = i=1
n (8)
where MSE is the mean of the squared error obtained from the dis­
similarities in the simulated and predicted output MFsimulated and
MFpredicted, respectively, and n is the number of data points. Fig. 14
shows that for the present problem, the MSE of the ANN model is
minimum corresponding to 9 neurons in the hidden layer. This results
in an 8-9-1 architecture of the ANN model as shown in Fig. 15.
N. Sharma, et al.
Fig. 14. Variation of MSE with number of hidden layer neurons.
Based on the FE simulations, a dataset comprising 192 input–output
combinations is generated which is provided in Table A1 of Appendix.
For the development of the ANN model, the complete dataset is divided
[40] into samples on which training, validation, and testing exercises
have been performed. In summary, 134 combinations have been used
for training, 29 for validation and 29 for testing. The datasets for each
of the exercises have been chosen randomly from the complete dataset
so that the generalization in data is achieved. The training of the ANN
model continually adjusts the weights and biases associated with the
neurons through an iterative feed-forward back-propagation algorithm
so that a minimum error between the simulated and predicted values of
the modification factor (MF) is achieved. It is important to stop the
training at an optimum stage when the model is trained just enough to
generalize the relationship without overfitting or underfitting of the
data. For this, an early stopping criterion is used [13,15] in which the
error corresponding to training data and testing data is obtained at each
epoch (iteration) and is compared to the preceding epoch. As the
number of epoch increases, the error in the training data continues to
decrease; however, for the test data, the error reduces up to a certain
Fig. 15. Architecture of the proposed ANN model.
1604
Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612
number of iterations, beyond which the error increases. The training is
stopped when the error, corresponding to test data, successively in­
creases for a certain number of successive epochs. Fig. 16(a) and 16(b)
show the comparison of the simulated and the predicted values of the
output (MF) during training and testing phases respectively. The coef­
ficients of efficiency R2 for training and testing are found to be 0.96 and
0.95 respectively.
It can be seen that the model is able to predict the values of the
output quite well when exposed to the testing data set. Residual ana­
lysis of the ANN model was carried out by calculating the residuals from
the simulated modification factor and predicted modification factor for
the entire data set. The residual is defined in Eq. (9) as
er = MFsimulated MFpredicted (9)
where er is the residual corresponding to a simulated modification
factor (MFsimulated) and predicted modification factor (MFpredicted). The
residuals corresponding to each data point are assigned an experiment
number (given in Table A1 of the Appendix) and plotted. Fig. 16(c)
shows the residual plot of the relationship proposed for the entire data
set. It can be observed that the residuals are scattered randomly about
the horizontal line and that its magnitude is within 20%. Thus, the
model can be used for prediction of the modification factor (MF).
5.1.1. Sensitivity study
For any predictive model, it is important to know the dependency of
the output variable towards each input variable. This can be obtained
by ascertaining the relative importance of the input variables involved
by performing a sensitivity analysis. In the present study, Garson’s al­
gorithm [41] has been implemented to study the sensitivity of various
input variables on the modification factor (MF). The algorithm parti­
tions the connection weights (input-hidden and hidden-output) and
utilizes their absolute values to determine the relative importance of
each input variable, as expressed in Eq. (10):
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

1 1
R2 = 0.96 R2 = 0.95

0.5 0.5

MFP redicted
MFP redicted
0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
MFSimulated MFSimulated

) a ( ) b (

0.2
Residual

-0.2
0 50 100 150 200
Experiment number

(c)
Fig. 16. Performance of ANN model: (a) training phase, (b) testing phase, and (c) residual distribution.

n j
|mwIH | Table 5
Relative Importance|Xm = N j
|kwIH j
| )|wHO | Weights of the neurons connecting the hidden and output layer nodes
j= 1 ( k= 1 (10)
Output TSSI/TF wHO (hidden-output neuron weight)
th
where Xm is the m input variable for which the relative importance is
to be obtained, wIH is the input-hidden neuron weight, wHO is the N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9
hidden-output neuron weight, N (N = 8) is the total number of input Y 1.88 0.15 0.72 −0.42 −0.58 −3.15 0.82 1.00 1.18
variables, and n (n = 9) is the total number of neurons in the hidden
layer. Table 4 shows the weights of the neurons connecting the input
layer nodes and hidden layer nodes. Table 5 shows the weight between 5.1.2. ANN model equation
the hidden layer nodes and the output. Table 6 lists the biases of the The input–output relationship of the developed ANN model can be
input and output neurons after training. The relative importance and expressed in the form of a predictive relationship. Past studies have
ranking of the various input parameters are given in Table 7. shown the usefulness of such relationships and various researchers have
The attainment of the relative importance percentage and the im­ developed similar ANN based predictive relationships for different
portance rank of individual variables highlight the fact that the mod­ problems [15,42–43]. Similar approach has been adopted in the present
ification factor (MF) is highly dependent on the pile dimensions (dp and study to form a predictive expression for estimating MF, considering
lp), followed by the structural width and height (H and W). The effective various influencing parameters, which can be represented by the ex­
stiffness and mass of the structure (M* and K*), followed by soil pression shown in Eq. (11):
property Gsoil and the number of piles (np), have relatively lower in­
fluence on the value of MF as compared to the dimensions of the pile
foundation and structure.

Table 4
Weights of the neurons connecting the input and hidden layer nodes
Input Variable wIH (input-hidden neuron weights)

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9

X1 GSoil 0.19 −0.18 0.23 −0.78 0.94 −1.10 −0.10 −1.16 0.19
X2 dp 0.37 −1.10 −1.41 −0.01 −0.28 −0.93 0.79 −1.17 0.37
X3 lp −0.02 −0.57 0.14 0.05 −0.20 0.32 2.90 −0.55 −0.02
X4 np −0.27 −1.21 −0.88 0.69 −0.36 0.29 −0.002 −1.01 −0.27
X5 K* 0.56 −1.42 1.37 −0.33 1.47 −0.36 −0.64 0.32 0.56
X6 M* −0.18 0.11 −0.38 0.06 0.63 1.22 0.23 −1.88 −0.18
X7 H −0.30 0.35 0.49 −0.59 1.29 0.77 −1.32 −0.70 −0.30
X8 W −0.82 0.47 −1.26 0.01 −0.59 −0.94 1.36 0.25 −0.82

1605
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table 6
Biases of the neurons after training
b0 (Bias of output node) bhj (Bias of hidden layer neurons)

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9

2.07 −2.67 −1.30 −0.50 −0.29 −0.49 −0.56 −1.29 −1.70 −2.59

Table 7 number Nj) can be obtained from Table 6. In Eq. (15), (wHO ) Nj can be
Importance ranking of input parameters based on Garson’s algorithm obtained from Table 5. Similarly, in Eq. (16) (or Eq. (17)), (wIH ) Xk , Nj
Input Variable Outcome of Garson’s Sensitivity Analysis
can be obtained from Table 4.

Relative Importance Relative importance (%) Rank

6. Comparison with previous relationships
X1 GSoil 1.04 6.50 7
X2 dp 2.80 17.60 1 As already mentioned, few earlier studies have prescribed re­
X3 lp 2.79 17.56 2 lationships for TSSI, as given in Table 8 in the form of modification
X4 np 0.84 5.26 8
factor (MF), i.e., the ratio of effective natural period of the SSI system
X5 K* 1.56 9.76 6
X6 M* 1.90 11.93 5 (TSSI) to the fixed base natural period (TF). The estimates of MF using
X7 H 2.53 15.90 3 the proposed ANN predictive relationship are compared with those
X8 W 2.47 15.49 4 available in literature and with that obtained from the finite element
simulations. Expressions from the past studies require the estimation of
foundation stiffness for which standard relationships have been utilized
[33]. The results shown in this section are corresponding to the building
n N
j j
MFn = flin b0 + wHO fsig bhj + wIH Xk
frame system wherein the columns are supported by a group of three
j=1 k=1 (11)
piles. Other configurations of pile foundation show similar trends and
where MFn is the normalized MF varying from −1 to 1, fsig is the sig­ hence, are not discussed for the sake of brevity.
moid transfer function, flin is the linear transfer function, b0 is the bias at Fig. 17 shows a comparison of MF for a few building frames. Each
output layer, bhj is the bias at the jth neuron of the hidden layer, wIH is building frame model is labelled to indicate the number of stories, bays
the input-hidden weight, wHO is the hidden-output weight, N (N = 8) is and the type of supporting soil condition. For e.g., a 3 storied 15 bay
the total number of input variables, and n (n = 9) is the total number of frame supported on soft soil (SS) condition is labelled as ‘F3-15_SS’. The
neurons in the hidden layer. The developed expression utilizes the estimates of MF using the proposed ANN equation show a very good
weights and biases obtained after training of the data as shown in and close agreement with those obtained from finite element simula­
Tables 4–6. Since the development of the ANN model has been carried tions. This is because the expressions proposed in the present study
out on normalized data (to ensure equal weightage to all the input have been developed using advanced finite element SSI models, con­
parameters), denormalization of the normalized modification factor sidering several input parameters which are interrelated by means of a
(MFn) is necessary. The denormalized value of the modification factor complex network using the theory of ANN. It can also be observed that
(MF) is obtained using Eq. (12): the expressions given by past researchers provide lower estimates of the
MF for the frames supported on weaker soil conditions and there exists
MF = 0.5(MFn + 1)(MFmax MFmin ) + MFmin (12)
a large difference with respect to the FE simulated values. This is be­
where MFmax = 1.23, MFmin = 1.02, MFn and MF are the normalized cause the expressions proposed by Veletsos and Meek [4] and Gazetas
and denormalized modification factors, respectively. Thus Eq. (13) can [7] have been developed and are applicable to structures supported on
be used to calculate the modification factor MF using the input vari­ shallow foundation; however, those expressions have been applied to
ables. structures on pile foundation. The expression of Kumar and Prakash [9]
although developed for structures supported on pile foundation, has
MF = 0.105 × (MFn + 1) + 1.02 (13)
been developed using a simplified model and is a modification over the
where, expression given by Veletsos and Meek [4]. The results presented here
9 highlight the robustness of the ANN based expressions proposed in the
MFn = b0 + Bj present study.
j=1 (14)
7. Conclusions
e Aj e Aj
Bj = (wHO ) Nj
e Aj + e Aj
(15) Fundamental natural period of a building is an important char­
8 acteristic required for seismic analysis or design. The prevailing trend is
Aj = bhj + Xk × (wIH ) Xk , Nj to obtain the fixed base natural period (TF) of the buildings and use it
k=1 (16) for further analysis. However, the soil-foundation characteristics in­
For the sake of clarity, the expanded form of Aj is shown in the fluence the natural vibrational characteristics and lead to a modifica­
following equation. tion in the natural period due to SSI effects. In the present study, the
influence of SSI effects on RC building frames supported by pile foun­
Aj dations is studied. Detailed finite element modelling has been carried
= bhj + GSoil × (wIH ) X1, Nj + dp × (wIH ) X2, Nj + lp × (wIH ) X3, Nj + np out to obtain the effective natural period (TSSI) of several configurations
of building frames, under various pile foundation and soil types. The
× (wIH ) X4 , Nj + K × (wIH ) X5, Nj + M × (wIH ) X6, Nj + H change in the fixed base natural period (of the frames) under the in­
fluence of SSI, was quantified in terms of the modification factor (MF)
× (wIH ) X7, Nj + W × (wIH ) X8, Nj (17)
which is the ratio of effective natural period (TSSI) to the fixed base
In Eq. (14) and Eq. (16), b and bhj (j corresponds to the neuron natural period (TF) of the building frame. Parametric study was

1606
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table 8
TSSI relationships proposed in past studies
Past Study Expression Remark

Veletsos and Meek [4] TSSI K K H2 Analytical equation developed for surface footings. Most widely used and adopted by seismic code e.g. ATC 3-
MF = = 1+ + 06 [5].
TF Kx K

Gazetas [7] TSSI K K H K H2 Semi-empirical relation with additional sway rocking component.
MF = = 1+ + +
TF Kx Kx K

Kumar and Prakash [9] 1.5 Semi-empirical relationship proposed specifically for structure on pile foundation.
TSSI 60 K K H2
MF = = 1+ +
TF H Kx K

MF = Ratio of the effective natural period to the fixed base natural period of the system.
TSSI = Natural period of the structural system under the influence of SSI.
TF = Fixed base natural period of the superstructure.
H = Effective height of the superstructure.
K* = Effective stiffness of the superstructure under fixed base condition.
Kx = Lateral stiffness of the foundation.
Kϕ = Rotational stiffness of the foundation.
Kxϕ = Coupled sway rotational stiffness of the foundation.

1.20 FE Simulated ATC 3 [5] Gazetas [7] under the columns due to group action. The flexibility of pile
Kumar and Prakash [9] Present Study foundation, along with soil, plays a determining role in SSI effects.
1.15 Building frames on pile foundations having greater pile foundation
flexibility (SH) exhibit greater SSI effects.
1.10 3. The developed ANN-based model is able to accurately predict the
MF

relationship of MF with various input parameters. Sensitivity ana­

1.05 lysis using Garson’s algorithm showed that the diameter (dp) and
length of pile (lp) are the most influential input parameters in the
determination of the modification factor followed by frame height
1.00
(H) and width (W). Structural characteristics represented by effec­
F3-5_SS
F3-15_SS

F3-15_DS
F6-5_SS
F6-15_SS

F6-15_DS
F9-5_SS
F9-15_SS

F9-15_DS

F12-5_DS
F12-15_DS
F3-5_DS

F6-5_DS

F9-5_DS

F12-5_SS
F12-15_SS

tive modal stiffness (K*), modal mass (M*), followed by shear

modulus of the soil (GSoil), and number of pile (np) have relatively
lesser importance.
Numerical Specimen 4. The proposed ANN equation is able to provide relatively accurate
estimates of MF when compared with those obtained using the ex­
Fig. 17. Comparison of the MF estimates from the proposed relation with past pressions available in the literature. This is so because the expres­
studies.
sions proposed by past researchers were originally developed for
SDOF on shallow foundation and were either made applicable or
conducted to identify the influence of the various input parameters, of modified for structures on pile foundations. The proposed ANN
the SSI system, on MF whose higher magnitude indicated greater SSI equation is developed using advanced finite element modelling
effects. Subsequently a feed-forward back-propagation artificial neural considering the intricate relationship between the various input
network (ANN) model has been developed to form a predictive re­ parameters and the output and can be utilized for the estimation of
lationship for obtaining the modification factor (MF) for the determi­ TSSI for RC building frame supported on pile foundations for dif­
nation of effective natural period (TSSI) of reinforced concrete building ferent soil types.
frames with pile foundations. The main conclusions drawn from the
present study are as follows:
Declaration of Competing Interest

1. Building frames supported by loose soil (SS) exhibited highest SSI

effects that reduced for stiffer soil conditions. A change in the The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
building frame width does not modify the fixed base natural period interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
of the building frame significantly as compared to the height. ence the work reported in this paper.
Building frames with extreme configurations such as very short and
wide or very tall and narrow frames showed marginally greater SSI Acknowledgements
effects.
2. Frames supported on single pile foundation under the columns ex­ The support and resources provided by Dept. of Civil Engg., Indian
hibit greater SSI effects as compared to those supported on group of Institute of Technology Guwahati and Ministry of Human Resources
two or three piles, as in a group the piles are more effective in ar­ and Development (MHRD, Govt. of India), is gratefully acknowledged
resting rocking behavior and impart additional rocking stiffness by the authors.

Appendix

1607
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table A1
Dataset used for training and testing
Data Type Expt. No. G* dp lp np K* M* H W MFsimulated MFpredicted

Training 1 1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.636 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.669 −0.695
3 1.000 −1.000 −1.000 0.182 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.865 −0.850
5 0.225 −1.000 −0.586 −0.636 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.525 −0.540
7 0.225 −1.000 −0.586 0.182 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.573 −0.552
8 0.225 −1.000 −0.586 1.000 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.420 −0.438
10 −0.­ −0.818 −0.517 −0.364 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.293 −0.393
414
11 −0.­ −0.818 −0.517 0.182 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.420 −0.325
414
12 −0.­ −0.818 −0.517 1.000 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.182 −0.234
414
13 −1.­ −0.818 0.034 −0.636 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.147 −0.127
000
14 −1.­ −0.818 0.034 −0.364 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.056 −0.121
000
15 −1.­ −0.818 0.034 0.182 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.016 −0.040
000
16 −1.­ −0.818 0.034 1.000 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 0.330 0.353
000
20 1.000 −0.818 −0.862 1.000 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.782 −0.755
21 0.225 −0.636 −0.724 −0.636 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.583 −0.583
23 0.225 −0.636 −0.724 0.182 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.473 −0.406
25 −0.­ −0.455 −0.448 −0.636 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.473 −0.504
414
26 −0.­ −0.455 −0.448 −0.364 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.796 −0.649
414
27 −0.­ −0.455 −0.448 0.182 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.126 −0.275
414
28 −0.­ −0.455 −0.448 1.000 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.223 −0.239
414
29 −1.­ −0.455 0.241 −0.636 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.131 −0.183
000
30 −1.­ −0.455 0.241 −0.364 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.690 −0.471
000
32 −1.­ −0.455 0.241 1.000 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 0.019 0.070
000
34 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 −0.364 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.451 −0.530
36 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 1.000 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.614 −0.575
38 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.364 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.324 −0.299
42 −0.­ −0.273 −0.103 −0.364 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.193 −0.196
414
43 −0.­ −0.273 −0.103 0.182 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.255 −0.252
414
44 −0.­ −0.273 −0.103 1.000 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.106 −0.191
414
45 −1.­ −0.273 0.655 −0.636 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 0.190 0.203
000
46 −1.­ −0.273 0.655 −0.364 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 0.078 0.005
000
48 −1.­ −0.273 0.655 1.000 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 0.310 0.337
000
49 1.000 −0.455 −0.793 −0.636 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 −0.170 −0.134
51 1.000 −0.455 −0.793 0.182 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.593 −0.615
53 0.225 −0.273 −0.586 −0.636 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 −0.003 −0.035
55 0.225 −0.273 −0.586 0.182 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.292 −0.293
56 0.225 −0.273 −0.586 1.000 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.376 −0.392
58 −0.­ −0.091 −0.034 −0.364 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.119 −0.002
414
61 −1.­ −0.091 0.793 −0.636 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 0.918 0.611
000
62 −1.­ −0.091 0.793 −0.364 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 0.045 0.275
000
63 −1.­ −0.091 0.793 0.182 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 0.027 0.082
000
64 −1.­ −0.091 0.793 1.000 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.267 0.223
000
66 1.000 −0.818 −1.000 −0.636 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.665 −0.562
67 1.000 −0.818 −1.000 −0.273 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.935 −0.808
68 1.000 −0.818 −1.000 0.273 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.837 −0.869
69 0.225 −0.818 −0.655 −0.818 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.597 −0.496
70 0.225 −0.818 −0.655 −0.636 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.665 −0.534
71 0.225 −0.818 −0.655 −0.273 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.647 −0.740
72 0.225 −0.818 −0.655 0.273 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.837 −0.769
73 −0.636 −0.379 −0.818 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.525 −0.429
(continued on next page)

1608
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table A1 (continued)

Data Type Expt. No. G* dp lp np K* M* H W MFsimulated MFpredicted

−0.­
414
74 −0.­ −0.636 −0.379 −0.636 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.293 −0.382
414
75 −0.­ −0.636 −0.379 −0.273 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.497 −0.569
414
77 −1.­ −0.636 0.172 −0.818 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.147 −0.143
000
78 −1.­ −0.636 0.172 −0.636 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.215 −0.219
000
79 −1.­ −0.636 0.172 −0.273 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.342 −0.307
000
82 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 −0.636 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.690 −0.832
83 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 −0.273 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.690 −0.818
84 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 0.273 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.782 −0.864
85 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.818 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.690 −0.685
86 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.636 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.690 −0.793
87 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.273 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.690 −0.562
90 −0.­ −0.273 −0.172 −0.636 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.473 −0.644
414
91 −0.­ −0.273 −0.172 −0.273 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.473 −0.446
414
93 −1.­ −0.091 0.172 −0.818 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.473 −0.450
000
95 −1.­ −0.091 0.172 −0.273 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.126 −0.122
000
96 −1.­ −0.091 0.172 0.273 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.104 −0.117
000
97 1.000 −0.455 −0.724 −0.818 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 −0.349 −0.314
99 1.000 −0.455 −0.724 −0.273 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.630 −0.540
100 1.000 −0.455 −0.724 0.273 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.614 −0.576
101 0.225 −0.273 −0.448 −0.818 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 −0.219 −0.212
102 0.225 −0.273 −0.448 −0.636 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.324 −0.368
103 0.225 −0.273 −0.448 −0.273 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.383 −0.401
104 0.225 −0.273 −0.448 0.273 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.492 −0.444
105 −0.­ −0.091 0.172 −0.818 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 −0.086 0.023
414
106 −0.­ −0.091 0.172 −0.636 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.193 −0.155
414
107 −0.­ −0.091 0.172 −0.273 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.255 −0.215
414
108 −0.­ −0.091 0.172 0.273 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.106 −0.130
414
109 −1.­ 0.091 0.586 −0.818 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 0.192 0.165
000
110 −1.­ 0.091 0.586 −0.636 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 0.078 0.023
000
111 −1.­ 0.091 0.586 −0.273 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 0.149 0.061
000
116 1.000 −0.273 −0.655 0.273 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.667 −0.665
117 0.225 −0.091 −0.379 −0.818 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 −0.170 −0.123
118 0.225 −0.091 −0.379 −0.636 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.280 −0.306
119 0.225 −0.091 −0.379 −0.273 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.445 −0.507
120 0.225 −0.091 −0.379 0.273 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.523 −0.493
121 −0.­ 0.273 −0.103 −0.818 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 −0.170 −0.122
414
122 −0.­ 0.273 −0.103 −0.636 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.119 −0.175
414
123 −0.­ 0.273 −0.103 −0.273 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.292 −0.260
414
125 −1.­ 0.273 0.793 −0.818 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 0.347 0.377
000
127 −1.­ 0.273 0.793 −0.273 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 0.027 −0.102
000
128 −1.­ 0.273 0.793 0.273 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.062 0.008
000
129 1.000 −0.636 −0.862 −1.000 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.068 −0.101
130 1.000 −0.636 −0.862 −0.909 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.056 −0.124
132 1.000 −0.636 −0.862 −0.455 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.457 −0.437
133 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −1.000 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.068 −0.182
134 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.909 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 0.027 −0.027
135 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.727 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.182 −0.194
136 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.455 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.213 −0.220
137 −0.­ −0.273 −0.241 −1.000 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 0.093 0.049
414
(continued on next page)

1609
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table A1 (continued)

Data Type Expt. No. G* dp lp np K* M* H W MFsimulated MFpredicted

138 −0.­ −0.273 −0.241 −0.909 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 0.109 0.239
414
139 −0.­ −0.273 −0.241 −0.727 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 0.155 0.135
414
140 −0.­ −0.273 −0.241 −0.455 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 0.130 0.172
414
141 −1.­ −0.273 0.586 −1.000 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 0.611 0.622
000
143 −1.­ −0.273 0.586 −0.727 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 0.605 0.545
000
144 −1.­ −0.273 0.586 −0.455 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 0.592 0.605
000
145 1.000 −0.273 −0.724 −1.000 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.473 −0.446
146 1.000 −0.273 −0.724 −0.909 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.473 −0.445
148 1.000 −0.273 −0.724 −0.455 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.566 −0.518
150 0.225 −0.091 −0.448 −0.909 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.473 −0.383
151 0.225 −0.091 −0.448 −0.727 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.126 −0.143
154 −0.­ 0.091 0.310 −0.909 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.006 −0.037
414
155 −0.­ 0.091 0.310 −0.727 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.006 0.017
414
156 −0.­ 0.091 0.310 −0.455 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 0.144 0.061
414
157 −1.­ 0.273 0.724 −1.000 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 0.118 0.151
000
159 −1.­ 0.273 0.724 −0.727 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 0.374 0.389
000
160 −1.­ 0.273 0.724 −0.455 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 0.403 0.430
000
162 1.000 −0.091 −0.517 −0.909 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.193 −0.099
163 1.000 −0.091 −0.517 −0.727 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.123 −0.158
164 1.000 −0.091 −0.517 −0.455 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.237 −0.344
165 0.225 0.273 −0.310 −1.000 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 0.217 0.093
167 0.225 0.273 −0.310 −0.727 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.123 −0.055
170 −0.­ 0.455 0.448 −0.909 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 0.219 0.207
414
172 −0.­ 0.455 0.448 −0.455 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 0.310 0.353
414
173 −1.­ 0.818 0.655 −1.000 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 0.364 0.397
000
176 −1.­ 0.818 0.655 −0.455 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 0.761 0.776
000
178 1.000 0.091 −0.448 −0.909 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.119 −0.156
179 1.000 0.091 −0.448 −0.727 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.292 −0.309
182 0.225 0.273 0.241 −0.909 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 0.045 0.088
183 0.225 0.273 0.241 −0.727 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.136 −0.203
186 −0.­ 0.636 0.724 −0.909 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 0.045 0.192
414
188 −0.­ 0.636 0.724 −0.455 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.269 0.364
414
189 −1.­ 1.000 1.000 −1.000 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 0.530 0.574
000
190 −1.­ 1.000 1.000 −0.909 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 0.573 0.367
000
191 −1.­ 1.000 1.000 −0.727 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 0.194 0.308
000
192 −1.­ 1.000 1.000 −0.455 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.879
000
Testing 2 1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.364 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.593 −0.782
4 1.000 −1.000 −1.000 1.000 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.573 −0.849
6 0.225 −1.000 −0.586 −0.364 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 −0.369 −0.580
9 −0.­ −0.818 −0.517 −0.636 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.451 −0.525
414
17 1.000 −0.818 −0.862 −0.636 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.690 −0.605
18 1.000 −0.818 −0.862 −0.364 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −1.000 −0.889
19 1.000 −0.818 −0.862 0.182 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.690 −0.742
22 0.225 −0.636 −0.724 −0.364 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.899 −0.759
24 0.225 −0.636 −0.724 1.000 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.566 −0.481
31 −1.­ −0.455 0.241 0.182 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.006 −0.241
000
33 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 −0.636 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 −0.349 −0.349
35 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 0.182 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.630 −0.509
37 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 −0.636 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 −0.219 −0.181
39 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 0.182 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 −0.383 −0.281
40 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 1.000 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.366 −0.405
(continued on next page)

1610
N. Sharma, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612

Table A1 (continued)

Data Type Expt. No. G* dp lp np K* M* H W MFsimulated MFpredicted

41 −0.­ −0.273 −0.103 −0.636 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 −0.086 −0.073
414
47 −1.­ −0.273 0.655 0.182 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 0.149 0.022
000
50 1.000 −0.455 −0.793 −0.364 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.434 −0.421
52 1.000 −0.455 −0.793 1.000 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.667 −0.642
54 0.225 −0.273 −0.586 −0.364 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.280 −0.149
57 −0.­ −0.091 −0.034 −0.636 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 0.347 0.124
414
59 −0.­ −0.091 −0.034 0.182 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.136 −0.233
414
60 −0.­ −0.091 −0.034 1.000 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.220 −0.149
414
65 1.000 −0.818 −1.000 −0.818 −0.775 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −0.808 −0.490
76 −0.­ −0.636 −0.379 0.273 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.613 −0.489
414
80 −1.­ −0.636 0.172 0.273 0.718 −0.575 −1.000 1.000 −0.135 −0.046
000
81 1.000 −0.636 −0.793 −0.818 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.690 −0.611
88 0.225 −0.455 −0.655 0.273 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.566 −0.676
89 −0.­ −0.273 −0.172 −0.818 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.561 −0.553
414
92 −0.­ −0.273 −0.172 0.273 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.566 −0.430
414
94 −1.­ −0.091 0.172 −0.636 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 −0.473 −0.483
000
98 1.000 −0.455 −0.724 −0.636 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 −0.451 −0.520
112 −1.­ 0.091 0.586 0.273 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 0.310 0.192
000
113 1.000 −0.273 −0.655 −0.818 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 −0.170 −0.213
114 1.000 −0.273 −0.655 −0.636 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 −0.434 −0.543
115 1.000 −0.273 −0.655 −0.273 0.008 0.160 1.000 0.000 −0.593 −0.705
124 −0.­ 0.273 −0.103 0.273 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.220 −0.201
414
126 −1.­ 0.273 0.793 −0.636 −0.545 −0.403 1.000 −0.667 0.045 0.087
000
131 1.000 −0.636 −0.862 −0.727 −0.044 −0.787 −1.000 0.000 −0.182 −0.396
142 −1.­ −0.273 0.586 −0.909 −0.516 −0.929 −1.000 −0.667 0.729 0.648
000
147 1.000 −0.273 −0.724 −0.727 −0.090 −0.459 −0.333 0.000 −0.473 −0.333
149 0.225 −0.091 −0.448 −1.000 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.473 −0.457
152 0.225 −0.091 −0.448 −0.455 0.640 −0.030 −0.333 1.000 −0.104 −0.276
153 −0.­ 0.091 0.310 −1.000 −1.000 −0.890 −0.333 −1.000 −0.006 −0.057
414
158 −1.­ 0.273 0.724 −0.909 −0.581 −0.747 −0.333 −0.667 0.244 0.280
000
161 1.000 −0.091 −0.517 −1.000 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 0.217 0.022
166 0.225 0.273 −0.310 −0.909 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 0.078 −0.008
168 0.225 0.273 −0.310 −0.455 1.000 0.495 0.333 1.000 −0.106 −0.080
169 −0.­ 0.455 0.448 −1.000 −0.757 −0.783 0.333 −1.000 0.364 0.380
414
171 −0.­ 0.455 0.448 −0.727 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 0.292 0.217
414
174 −1.­ 0.818 0.655 −0.909 −0.471 −0.572 0.333 −0.667 0.364 0.330
000
175 −1.­ 0.818 0.655 −0.727 0.125 −0.144 0.333 0.000 0.437 0.539
000
177 1.000 0.091 −0.448 −1.000 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 −0.004 0.125
180 1.000 0.091 −0.448 −0.455 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.220 −0.291
181 0.225 0.273 0.241 −1.000 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 0.347 0.473
184 0.225 0.273 0.241 −0.455 0.834 1.000 1.000 1.000 −0.062 −0.078
185 −0.­ 0.636 0.724 −1.000 −0.818 −0.682 1.000 −1.000 0.347 0.562
414

1611
N. Sharma, et al.
References
[1] IS 1893 (Part 1): Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures: General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards; 2016.
[2] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detri­
mental? J Earthq Eng 2000;4(3):277–301.
[3] Mylonakis G, Syngros C, Gazetas G, Tazoh T. The role of soil in the collapse of 18
piers of Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct D
2006;35(5):547–75.
[4] Veletsos AS, Meek JW. Dynamic behavior of building foundation systems. Earthq
Eng Struct D 1974;3(2):121–38.
[5] ATC 3-06: Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for
buildings. Report. No. ATC. 3-06. Applied Technological Council; 1978.
[6] UBC-97 Uniform Building Code. In Structural engineering design provisions.
International conference of building officials, Whittier, California; 1997.
[7] Gazetas G. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering- case studies. Athens (in
Greek): Simeon Publication; 1996.
[8] Maravas A, Mylonakis G, Karabalis D. Dynamic characteristics of structures on piles
and footings. 4th International conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering,
Thessaloiki-Greece. 2007. p. 25–8.
[9] Kumar S, Prakash S. Estimation of fundamental period for structures supported on
pile foundations. Geotech Geol Eng 2004;22:375–89.
[10] Rovithis EN, Pitilakis KD, Mylonakis GE. Seismic analysis of coupled soil-pile-
structure systems leading to the definition of a pseudo-natural SSI frequency. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29(6):1005–15.
[11] Deng HY, Jin XY, Gu M. A simplified method for evaluating the dynamic properties
of structures considering soil–pile–structure interaction. Int. J Struct Stab Dyn.
2018;18(06):1871005.
[12] Medina C, Álamo GM, Padrón LA, Aznárez JJ, Maeso O. Application of regression
models for the estimation of the flexible-base period of pile-supported structures in
continuously inhomogeneous soils. Eng Struct 2019;190:76–89.
[13] Acharyya R, Dey A. Assessment of bearing capacity for strip footing located near
sloping surface considering ANN model. Neural Comput Appl 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00521-018-3661-4.
[14] Acharyya R, Dey A, Kumar B. Finite element and ANN-based prediction of bearing
capacity of square footing resting on the crest of c-φ soil slope. Int J Geotech Eng
2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1435022.
[15] Momeni ER, Nazir D, Armaghani J, Maizir H. Prediction of pile bearing capacity
using a hybrid genetic algorithm-based ANN. Measurement 2014;57:122–31.
[16] Das SK, Basudhar PK. Undrained lateral load capacity of piles in clay using artificial
neural network. Comput Geotech 2006;33(8):454–9.
[17] Pala M, Caglar N, Elmas M, Cevik A, Saribiyik M. Dynamic soil–structure interaction
analysis of buildings by neural networks. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(3):330–42.
[18] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation User Manual. Berkeley: University of California; 2006.
[19] ATC 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete buildings. Redwood
City (CA): Applied Technology Council; 1996.
[20] Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A. OpenSees soil models and solid- fluid fully coupled ele­
ments, user's manual version 1.0. University of California, San Diego; 2008.
[21] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q Appl
Math 1952;10(2):157–65.
[22] Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation
problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 1973;99(SM5):421–7.
1612
Structures 27 (2020) 1594–1612
[23] Zhang Y, Yang Z, Bielak J, Conte JP, Elgamal A (2003) Treatment of seismic input
and boundary conditions in nonlinear seismic analysis of a bridge ground system.
In: Proceedings the of 16th ASCE engineering mechanics conference. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA; 2003.
[24] Kolay C, Prashant A, Jain SK. Nonlinear dynamic analysis and seismic coefficient for
abutments and retaining walls. Earthq Spectra 2013;29(2):427–51.
[25] IS 875 Part 2. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake) for Building and Structures: Imposed Loads. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India; 1987.
[26] IS 456. Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete- Code of Practice. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India; 2000.
[27] IS 2911Part 1/Sec 1. Indian Standard Design and Construction of Pile Foundations-
Code of Practice: Concrete Piles. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India;
2010.
[28] IS 13920. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Subjected to Seismic Forces- Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India; 2016.
[29] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div
1969;95(4):859–78.
[30] Joyner WB. A method for calculating nonlinear seismic response in two dimensions.
Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1975;65(5):1337–57.
[31] Zhang Y, Conte JP, Yang Z, Elgamal A, Bielak J, Acero G. Two-dimensional non­
linear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system. Earthq
Spectra 2008;24(2):343–86.
[32] Sharma N, Dasgupta K, Dey A. Optimum lateral extent of soil domain for dynamic
SSI analysis of RC framed buildings on pile foundations. Front Struct Civ Eng
2019;14(1):62–81.
[33] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In: Foundation engineering handbook, Springer,
Boston, MA 1991; p. 553-593.
[34] Lee SC. Prediction of concrete strength using artificial neural networks. Eng Struct
2003;25(7):849–57.
[35] Mansour MY, Dicleli M, Lee JY, Zhang J. Predicting the shear strength of reinforced
concrete beams using artificial neural networks. Eng Struct 2004;26(6):781–99.
[36] Behera RN, Patra CR, Sivakugan N, Das BM. Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity
of eccentrically inclined loaded strip footing by ANN: Part I. Int J Geotech Eng
2013;7(1):36–44.
[37] Behera RN, Patra CR, Sivakugan N, Das BM. Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity
of eccentrically inclined loaded strip footing by ANN: Part II. Int J Geotech Eng
2013;7(2):165–72.
[38] Hagan MT, Menhaj MB. Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algo­
rithm. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 1994;5(6):989–93.
[39] MathWorks Matlab user’s manual. Version 2015A. Natick: The MathWorks Inc;
2001.
[40] Ghaboussi J, Sidarta DE, Lade PV. Neural network based modelling in geo­
mechanics. In: Computer methods and advances in geomechanics. Rotterdam
Publishing, Balkema; 1994, pp 153–164.
[41] Garson GD. Interpreting neural-network connection weights. AI expert
1991;6(4):46–51.
[42] Goh ATC. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J Geotech Eng
1994;120(9):1467–80.
[43] Das SK, Basudhar PK. Prediction of residual friction angle of clays using artificial
neural network. Eng Geol 1998;100:142–5.