Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.

com, ISSN 1743-3509

Seismic analysis and design of building

structures including SSI
G.S. Nikolettos and C.C. Spyrakos
Department of Civil Engineering, Laboratory for Earthquake
Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Zografos 15700, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

Current codes and seismic provisions recognize the important role that soil -
structure interaction (SSI) can play on the seismic response of building
structures. However, with the exception of the NEHRP provisions, most codes do
not include a structured procedure that provides sufficient detailed information to
account for SSI in analysis and design.
This study presents a methodology that can be incorporated in either
Eurocode 8 or the New Greek Seismic Code (NEAK) for the design of building
structures including the effects of SSI. The eleven - step procedure can be
applied to either regular or irregular buildings using either a pseudo-dynamic-
equivalent static procedure or response spectrum analysis.
In order to demonstrate the proposed methodology, representative reinforced
concrete multistory buildings on spread footings are analyzed. Extensive
parametric studies are conducted to examine the effect of soil parameters on
building response, design forces and steel reinforcement. Comparisons are made
between design forces and steel reinforcements of the buildings analyzed using
current codes that do not consider SSI and with the proposed enhancement of the
codes that includes the effects of SSI.
The results indicate a substantial economy in steel reinforcement - in the order
of 15 %- in most cases of the foundation types that were studied. An increase in
total lateral displacements, which could be of concern for closely build structures
with insufficient gap between them, is also recognized. The procedure can be
extended to other foundation types, such as strip-foundations and pile
foundations.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

468 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures

I Introduction

Dynamic interaction between soils and structures has received

considerable attention in recent years. Extensive studies conducted in the
past three decades have demonstrated that, in general, soil-structure
interaction (SSI) has the following effects: (1) reduction of resonant
frequencies of systems in comparison to those of a fixed-based structure;
(2) partial dissipation of the vibrational energy of a structure through
wave radiation into the soil; (3) modification of the actual foundation
motion from thefree-fieldmotion.
Existing methodologies to study dynamic interaction can be classified
as follows: (a) simplified methods (the main subject of this study) (b)
direct methods and (c) substructure methods. The most appropriate
method for structural analysis is the finite element method, especially in
three dimensions. Dynamic analysis of infinite or semi-infinite bodies,
such as soil media, can be handled ideally with the Boundary Element
Method which takes into account automatically the radiation condition
and requires discretization of only the soil-structure interface.
The proposed methodology utilizes the fact that SSI primarily affects
the fundamental mode of vibration leading, as a rule for most building
structures, to an increase of the fundamental natural period of the
structure with simultaneous change, usually an increase, of damping in
the soil-structure system. The increase in period results from the
flexibility of the foundation soil, whereas the change in damping results
mainly from the effects of energy dissipation in the soil due to radiation
and material damping. Use of these provisions decreases the design
values of the base shear, lateral forces, and overturning moments but may
increase the lateral displacements and the secondary forces associated
with P-delta effects.

2 Shear modulus of the soil

For soils the stress-strain behavior of most interest in earthquakes is that

involving shear, and, except for competent rock, engineering soils behave
in a markedly non-linear fashion in the stress range of interest. For small
strains, the shear modulus of a soil can be taken as the mean slope of the
stress-strain curve. At large strains the stress-strain curve becomes
markedly non-linear so that the shear modulus is far from constant, but is
dependent on the magnitude of shear strain.
The foundation stiffness shall be computed by established principles
of foundation mechanics using soil properties that are compatible with
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures 469

soil strain levels associated with the design earthquake motion. The
average shear modulus (G) for soils beneath the foundation at large strain
levels and the associated shear wave velocity (Vg) can be determined
from Table 1 (NEHRP [9]). In order to incorporate the proposed
methodology to the New Greek Seismic Code (NEAK [8]) the average
shear modulus and the associated wave velocity are determined from
Table 2.
TABLE 1
GROUND ACCELER.

<0.10 <0.15 <0.20 >0.30

G/Go 0.81 0.64 0.49 0.42
Vs/Vso 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.65

TABLE 2
ZONE I II III IV
G/Go 0.74 0.61 0.46 0.42
Vs/Vso 0.86 0.78 0.68 0.65

where: VSQ is the average shear wave velocity for soils beneath the
foundation at small strain levels (10~^ percent or less); GO = y(Vso)"/g is
the average shear modulus for soils beneath the foundation at small strain
levels and y is the average unit weight of soils.

3 Methodology that can be incorporated in either

EC8[7] or NEAKJ8] for the design of building
Structures including SSI

The eleven-step procedure can be applied to either regular or irregular

buildings using either a pseudo-dynamic equivalent static procedure or
response spectrum analysis. In this section, the interaction effects are
considered only in evaluating the contribution of the fundamental mode
of the building. The contributions of higher modes are computed as if the
structure were fixed at the base. The procedure for response spectrum
analysis is the same as a pseudo-dynamic equivalent static procedure
except that the effective weight and effective height of the structure are
computed so as to correspond exactly to those of the fundamental natural
mode of the fixed -base structure.

STEP 1: Evaluation of the fundamental natural period of the fixed-based

structure, T.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

470 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures

STEP 2: Evaluation of the ratio Vs/fh. If Vs/f h > 20 then the interaction
effect is negligible in this case. If Vs/f h < 20 then the effects of soil
structure interaction must be accounted for (Veletsos and Meek [15]).
Where: f is the fixed-base natural frequency of the system in cycles per
unit of time; Vg is the shear wave velocity in the soil-half space, h is the
effective height of the building which shall taken as 0.7 times the total
height except that for buildings where the gravity load is practically
concentrated at a single level, it will be taken as the height to that level.
STEP 3: Evaluation of the radius r^ and r^, for each foundation unit.
r<xi = (Ao/7r)^ is the radius of a circular footing that has the area of the i*
footing, AO,; and rmi=(4Ioi/7c)^ is the radius of a circular footing, the
moment of inertia of which about a horizontal centroidal axis is equal to
that of the i* footing, loi, in the direction in which the response is being
evaluated.
STEP 4: Evaluation of the shear modulus and the shear wave velocity at
soil strain levels compatible with the design earthquake motion in
conjunction with Tables 1 or 2.
STEP 5: Evaluation of stiffnesses ky,, k%, and k©, for each foundation
unit. The stiffnesses ky,, k%, and k@j are evaluated from (NEHRP [9]):
\i
a)

4G-r 1 d (2)
-~- 1 + 0.4 ~

(3)

where dj is the depth of effective embedment for the i* footing and G; is

the shear modulus of the soil beneath the i* footing.
If a structure is embedded in such a way that there is no contact between
the soil and the walls of the structure, or when any existing contact
cannot be reasonably expected to remain effective for the stipulated
design ground motion, stiffnesses ky,, k%, and ke, should be determined
from eqns (1) - (3) for d; equal to zero.
STEP 6: Evaluation of the total stiffness of the foundation.

(4) = J + 0 , (5)
KY and K© represent the horizontal and rocking stiffness of the
foundation, respectively. The quantity ky, represents the horizontal
stiffness of the i* footing; k^ k©i are the corresponding vertical and
rocking stiffnesses, respectively; and Vj represents the normal distance
from the centroid of the i* footing to the rocking axis of the foundation.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures 471

STEP 7: Evaluation of the building stiffness, k, when fixed at the base.

STEP 8:_ Evaluation of the effective building period. The effective
period ( T) is determined as follows:

(6)

e^firstportion of eqn (6) under the radical represents the contribution

to T of the translational flexibility of the foundation, while the second
portion represents the contribution of the corresponding rocking
flexibility.
STEP 9: Evaluation of the foundation damping factor po.

0 25

^0020

015

0 10

005

~ -,—'I i i ; I I I I
1.0 12 1.4 1.6 18
f/T or T,/T,

Figure 1

For mat foundations of circular plan that are supported at the surface
of a reasonably uniform soils deposit, the three most important
parameters that affect (3o are: the ratio T/T of the fundamental natural
period of the elastically supported to the fixed-based structure, the ratio
h/r of the effective height of the structure to the radius of the
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

472 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures

foundation, and soil damping. The variation of (3o with T/T and h/r is
given in Figure 1.
For mat foundations of arbitrary shape, the quantity r in Figure 1
should be interpreted as the characteristic length that is related to the
length of the foundation, LO, in the direction in which the structure is
analyzed. For short, squatty structures for which h/Lo<0.5, the overall
damping of the structure-foundation system is dominated by the
translational response of the foundation, and it is reasonable to interpret r
as r^j in step 3. On, the other hand, for structures with h/Lo>l, the
interaction effects are dominated by the rocking motion of the
foundation, and it is reasonable to define r as r^i in step 3.
The curves in Figure 1 also may be used for spread footing. In these
cases the quantities AO and IQ for the equations in step 3 should be
interpreted as the area and the moment of inertia of the load-carrying
foundation.
STEP 10: Evaluation of the effective damping factor for the structure-
foundation system. _The effective damping factor for the structure-
foundation system ( (3) is computed from (NEHRP [9], Nikolettos [10]) .

T
in which po represents the contribution of foundation damping and the
second term represents the contribution of structural damping.
For buildings supported on point bearing piles and in all other cases
where the foundation soil consists of a soft stratum of reasonably
uniform properties underlain by a much stiffer, rock-like deposit with an
abrupt increase in stiffness, radiation damping effects are practically
negligible when the natural period of vibration of the stratum in shear,
Ts=4Ds/Vs^ is smaller than the natural period of the flexibly supported
structure, T. It follows that_the values of J3o presented in Figure 1 are
applicable only when TS / T>1. For TS / T<1 the factor Po in eqn (7)
shall be replaced by:
'

STEP 11: Evaluation of the base shear of the structure^ To account for
the effects of soil-structure interaction, the base shear ( V) is determined
from equation: V = V - kV (9)
where V is the base shear with soil-structure interaction effects
neglected. The reduction (AV) shall be computed as follows:
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures 473

c.-c. -=- (10)

where Cg is the seismic design coefficient using the fundamental natural

period of the fixed base structure ( T); Cg is the seismic design
coefficient using_the fundamental natural period of the flexibly supported
structure ( T); P is the_fraction of critical damping for the structure
foundation system; and W is the effective gravity load of the building,
which shall taken as 0.7W, except that for buildings where the gravity
load is concentrated at a single level, it shall taken equal to W.
STEP 12: Determination of design earthquake forces and total
displacements for the structure, including all the modifications in base
shear, damping factor and building period.
Taking soil-structure interaction into account, will, in general, reduce
the maximum structural distortion, while the maximum total
displacement of the structure could increased. For structures supported
on soft soil, the foundation motion is generally different from the free-
field motion and may include an important rocking component in
addition to a lateral or translational component. The rocking component
may cause an increase of the total lateral displacements. This is may be
particularly significant for closely build structures with insufficient gap
between them. The total deformation, Ut, can_ be determined with
sufficient accuracy from the equation u^=( T/T/u, where u the
deformation of the structure.

4 Analysis and design of a reinforced concrete

Multistorey building on spread footings

A reinforced concretefive-storystructure (Figure 2: plan view of typical

floor) is analyzed to examine the effect of soil-structure interaction on
the building response, design forces and steel reinforcement. The
foundation is a system of individual spread footings connected with
beams. The height of thefirstflooris 4m, the height of the others floors
is 3m. The average shear wave velocity for the supporting soil at small
strain levels is 200 m/s.
The structure is analyzed for the following cases:
1) Fixed - base foundation.
2) Elastic support, using springs (one vertical and two rocking)
compatible with small strain levels (Vso, Go).
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

474 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures

3) Elastic support, using springs (one vertical and two rocking)

compatible with the soil strain levels associated with the design
earthquake motion, i.e. large strain levels Vs, G.
4) Consideration of soil-structure interaction.
„•> (50/50) K3 (250/25) ^^ ^/^ :,, 50/50)
1 ^-^r-^ — '_— ,,, ,,^ -,.. , • ,, „., , ,
T K6 (50/50)
i
j
j ,
-i S
'•"•!?-•• # > t # 1
E '^ : i "' :i - f
T ,
K* 50/20) K10 60/60) f,, ^0/60) j^,., (250/25)
- 4i:r--^4^— -4• ,-, r,,M,, |- „„ y,",T,-i
1/7 (50/50) ^:
1 '
; ,
1 # ; ^37" f 4% "!
' K-; (420/30) l^ggJmj-29 (90/30) 1 l,,g (250/25) ^
K,, (250/25) L,, (60/60) UK-,; (55/30) ^' (60/60) ;.:,? (50/50)
K26 (250/30)
1

ii # :; ^ {
j "^ !| ^
50/50) |, (50/50) I ' t
./-,, (250/25) K2-? M) r, (50/50) |
I iI i ." .-. ^I -n --'-n •
- 6.00 -
-30.00-
Figure 2

4.1 Conclusion

Table 3 - Results
Methods of Fundamental Base shear (kN)
analysis Period (s)
T, Ty V, Vv
Fixed Base 0.21 0.27 3971 3971
Elastic support, GO 0.52 0.64 3971 3804
Elastic support, G 0.54 0.67 3971 3697
SSI 0.33 0.48 2818 2785
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures 475

Table 4 - Steel reinforcement

Methods of Steel Reinforcement
analysis (kg)
Fixed base 115051.00
Elastic Support, Go 11344400
Elastic Support, G 112584.00
SSI 98041.00

A detailed description of the analysis procedure and modeling is given

in Nikolettos [10].
The primary conclusions of the example can be summarized as follows:
1) Analysis with an elastic support for small strain levels leads to
increase of the fundamental period (150% in x direction, 140% in y
direction) compared with the fundamental period for the fixed-base
analysis.
2) Decrease of the shear modulus, according to Table 2, leads to a small
increase of the fundamental period, so that the influence of the
reduction of the shear modulus is practically negligible for the
earthquake design forces. However, for mat and strip-foundations and
for tall structures with a large amount of mass concentrated on the top,
the influence of the reduction of the shear modulus could be
significant.
Consideration of soil-structure interaction:
3) increases the fundamental period of the structure (50%) compared
with the fundamental period of the fixed-base analysis.
4) reduces the base shear (30% in x and y direction) compared with the
base shear of the fixed-base analysis.
5) decreases the dimensions of footings compared with the fixed-base
analysis.
6) reduces the weight of steel reinforcement (15%) compared with the
fixed-base analysis.
7) increases the total lateral displacements of the structure, which could
be of concern for closely build structures with insufficient gap
between them.

5 References

[1] Antes, H. and Spyrakos, C.C., Soil - Structure Interaction, Chapter 6

in Computer Analysis and Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures,
Computer Mechanics Publications, Southampton, pp. 271-332, 1997.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 38 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

476 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures

[2] Bielak, J., Modal Analysis for Building-Soil Interaction, Journal of

the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division 102, pp. 771-786, 1976.
[3] Bielak, J., Dynamic Behaviour of Structures with Embedded
Foundations, In Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
3, pp. 259-274, 1987.
[4] Gazetas, G., Soil-Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Symeon
Publishing, Athens, 1996.
[5] Chopra, A.K. & Gutierrez, J.A. Earthquake Analysis of Multistory
Buildings Including Foundation Interaction, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 3, pp. 65-67, 1974.
[6] Dowrick, D. J. Earthquake Resistant Design, John Wiley & Sons,
1990.
[7] EUROCODE 8, Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of
Structures, Version 1994.
[8] New Greek Seismic Code (NEAK), Athens, 1992.
[9] NEHRP - National Earthquake Hazard Resistant Program,
Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings, FEMA, Washington, DC, 1991.
[10] Nikolettos, G., Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Master Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of
Athens (NTUA), July 1998.
[11] Patel, P. and Spyrakos, C.C., Uplift - Sliding Response of Flexible
Structures to Seismic Loads, Engineering Analysis with Boundary
Elements, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 185-191, August 1991.
[12] Seed, H.B., Whitman, R.V., Lysmer, J. Soil- Structure Interaction
Effects in the Design of Nuclear Power Plants, In Structural and
Geotechnical Mechanics, A Volume Honoring N.M. Newmark, edited by
W.J. Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
[13] Spyrakos, C.C. Seismic Behavior of Bridge Piers Including Soil -
Structure Interaction, Computers and Structures, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 373-
384,1992.
[14] Uniform Building Code, Structural Enginering Design Provisions,
California, USA, 1994.
[15] Veletsos, A., Meek, J. Dynamic Behavior of Building - Foundation
Systems, Earthq. Engng. Struct. Dynamics, vol. 3, pp. 121-318, 1974.
[16] Veletsos, A.S. and Nair, V.V. Seismic Interaction of Structures on
Hysteretic Foundations, Journal of the ASCE Structural Division 101
(STl),pp. 109-129, 1975.
[17] Wolf, P. J. Dynamic Soil - Structure Interaction, Prentice - Hall,
Inc.JEnglewood Cliffs, N.J.,1985.