Seismic Behavior of Building Frames Considering Dynamic

Soil-Structure Interaction
S. Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar1; Behzad Fatahi2; and Bijan Samali3

Abstract: The seismic excitation experienced by structures is a function of the earthquake source, travel path effects, local site effects, and soil-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structure interaction (SSI) influences. The result of the first three of these factors is referred to as free-field ground motion. The structural re-
sponse to free-field motion is influenced by the SSI. In particular, accelerations within structures are affected by the flexibility of the foundation
support and variations between the foundation and free-field motions. Consequently, an accurate assessment of inertial forces and displace-
ments in structures can require a rational treatment of SSI effects. In the current study, to depict these effects on the seismic response of
moment-resisting building frames, a 10-story moment-resisting building frame resting on a shallow foundation was selected in conjunction
with three soil types with shear-wave velocities of less than 600 m/s, representing Soil Classes Ce, De, and Ee according to an existing Australian
Standard. The structural sections were designed after applying dynamic nonlinear time-history analysis, based on both the elastic method, and
inelastic procedure using the elastic-perfectly plastic behavior of the structural elements. The frame sections were modeled and analyzed using
the finite-difference method andthe FLAC 2D software under two different boundary conditions: (1) fixed-base (no SSI) and (2) considering
the SSI. Fully nonlinear dynamic analysis under the influence of various earthquake records was conducted and the results of the two different cases
for elastic and inelastic behavior of the structural model were extracted, compared, and discussed. The results indicate that the performance level of
the model resting on Soil Class Ce does not change substantially and remains in the life safe level while the performance level of the model resting
on Soil Classes De and Ee substantially increase from the life safe level to near collapse for both elastic and inelastic cases. Thus, considering SSI
effects in the elastic and inelastic seismic design of concrete moment-resisting building frames resting on Soil Classes De and Ee is essential.
Generally, by decreasing the dynamic properties of the subsoil such as the shear-wave velocity and shear modulus, the base shear ratios
decrease while interstory drifts of the moment-resisting building frames increase relatively. In brief, the conventional elastic and inelastic
design procedure excluding the SSI is not adequate to guarantee structural safety for moment-resisting building frames resting on Soil Classes
De and Ee. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000231. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Soil-structure interactions; Structural response; Buildings; Frames; Seismic effects; Dynamic analysis.
Author keywords: Soil-structure interaction (SSI); Structural response; Moment-resisting building frames; Seismic behavior; Fully
nonlinear dynamic analysis; Performance level.

Introduction
Recent improvements in seismological source modeling, analysis of
travel path effects, and characterization of local site effects on strong
shaking have led to significant advances in both code-based and
more advanced procedures for evaluating the seismic demand in
structural design. However, a missing link has been an improved and
empirically verified treatment of soil-structure interaction (SSI). The
SSI refers to the process in which the response of the soil influences the
1
Research Assistant, Centre for Built Infrastructure Research, Univ. of
Technology Sydney (UTS), 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
(corresponding author). E-mail: SeyedHamidReza.Tabatabaiefar@uts
.edu.au
2
Senior Lecturer of Geotechnical Engineering, Centre for Built In-
frastructure Research, Univ. of Technology Sydney (UTS), 15 Broad-
way, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia. E-mail: behzad.fatahi@uts.edu.au
3
Professor of Structural Engineering, Centre for Built Infrastructure
Research, Univ. of Technology Sydney (UTS), 15 Broadway, Ultimo,
NSW 2007, Australia. E-mail: bijan.samali@uts.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 8, 2011; approved on
June 5, 2012; published online on August 9, 2012. Discussion period
open until January 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, Vol. 13, No. 4, August 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-
3641/2013/4-409–420/$25.00.
motion of the structure and the response of the structure influences the
motion of the soil. Implementing SSI effects enables the designer to
assess the inertial forces and real displacements of the soil-foundation-
structure system precisely under the influence of free-field motion. For
flexible or small structures resting on stiff soil the effects of the
interactions are usually insignificant, while the interactions of stiff and
heavy structures located on soft ground are very critical.
The earthquake in Mexico City in 1985 and many other recent
earthquakes, such as those in Christchurch in 2011 (New Zealand)
and Japan in 2011 (Fukushima), clearly illustrate the importance of
local soil properties on the earthquake response of structures. These
earthquakes demonstrated that the rock motions could be amplified
at the base of the structure. Therefore, there is a strong engineering
motivation for a site-dependent dynamic response analysis of many
foundations to determine the free-field earthquake motions. The
determination of a realistic site-dependent free-field surface motion
at the base of the structure can be the most important step in the
earthquake-resistant design of structures.
Background
The importance of the SSI both for static and dynamic loads has been
well established and the related literature covers at least 30 years of
computational and analytical approaches to solving SSI problems.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013 / 409

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

 Table 1. Geotechnical Characteristics of the Soils Used in this Study
Soil type Shear-wave Unified Shear modulus,
(AS 1170) velocity, Vs ðm=sÞ classification Gmax (kPa)
Ce 600 GM 623,409
De 320 CL 177,304
Ee 150 CL 33,100
Since the 1990s, great effort has been made to substitute the classical
methods of design by the new ones based on the concept of
performance-based seismic design. Also, the necessity of estimating
the vulnerability of existing structures and assessing reliable meth-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ods for their retrofit have greatly attracted the attention of the en-
gineering community in most seismic zones throughout the world.
To better judge the structural performance, a comprehensive study
with the ability of predicting the level of damage to the structure as
a result of the type of earthquake should be conducted.
Several researchers (e.g., Veletsos and Meek 1974; Gazetas and
Mylonakis 1998; Galal and Naimi 2008; Tabatabaiefar and Massumi
2010; Maheshwari and Sarkar 2011) have studied the structural
behavior of unbraced structures subjected to earthquake under the
influence of the SSI. Examples are given in Gazetas and Mylonakis
(1998), including evidence that some structures founded on soft soils
are vulnerable to SSIs. According to the available literature, gen-
erally when the shear-wave velocity of the supporting soil is less than
600 m=s, the effects of the SSI on the seismic response of structural
systems, particularly for moment-resisting building frames, are
significant. Thus, for ordinary building structures, the necessity of
better insight into the physical phenomena involved in SSI problems
has been heightened. In this study, the SSI effects on the perfor-
mance level of a 10-story moment-resisting building frame con-
structed on various soil types, including Soil Classes Ce, De, and Ee
(according to the Australian standards), are investigated.
Fully Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of the
Soil-Structure System
The governing equations of the motion of a structure, including the
foundation interaction and the method of solving these equations,
are relatively complex. Therefore, the direct method using the two-
dimensional (2D) fast Lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC)
finite-difference software, FLAC2D, developed by the Itasca Con-
sulting Group (Itasca 2008), is used in this study to model the soil-
structure system and solve these equations for complex geometries.
The dynamic equation of motion of the soil and structure system can
be written as
_ þ ½Kfug ¼ 2½Mfmg€
½Mf€ug þ ½Cfug ug þ fFv g
_ and {€
where {u}, {u}, u} 5 nodal displacements, velocities, and
accelerations with respect to the underlying soil foundation, re-
spectively; [M], [C], and [K] 5 mass, damping, and stiffness ma-
trices of the structure, respectively. It is more appropriate to use
the incremental form of Eq. (1) when plasticity is included, and
then the matrix [K] will be the tangential matrix and € ug will be the
earthquake-induced acceleration at the level of the bedrock. For
example, if only the horizontal acceleration is considered, then
fmg 5 ½1; 0; 1; 0; ::,1; 0T . Here, {Fv } is the force vector corre-
sponding to the viscous boundaries.
FLAC2D is a 2D explicit finite-difference program for engi-
neering mechanics computation. This program simulates the behavior
of structures built of soil, rock, steel, concrete, or other materials.
410 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013
Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.
Poisson Standard Plastic
ratio penetration test index c9 (kPa) f9 () Reference
0.28 N . 50 — 5 40 Rahvar (2005)
0.39 30 20 20 19 Rahvar (2006a)
0.40 6 15 20 12 Rahvar (2006b)
Materials are represented by elements, or zones, which form a grid that
is adjusted by the user to fit the shape of the object to be modeled. Each
element behaves according to a prescribed linear or nonlinear stress-
strain law in response to the applied forces or boundary restraints. The
program offers a wide range of capabilities for solving complex
problems in mechanics.
Several efforts have been made in recent years in the develop-
ment of analytical methods for assessing the response of struc-
tures and supporting soil media under seismic loading conditions.
Successful application of these methods for determining ground
seismic response is vitally dependent on the incorporation of the soil
properties in the analyses. As a result, substantial effort has also been
made toward the determination of soil attributes to use in these an-
alytical procedures. There are two main analytical procedures for
dynamic analysis of soil-structure systems under seismic loads;
i.e., the equivalent-linear method and the fully nonlinear method.
Byrne and Wijewickreme (2006) provided some overviews of the
aforementioned methods and discussed the benefit of the nonlinear
numerical method over the equivalent-linear method in various
practical applications. According to their research, the equivalent-
linear method is not appropriate to use in dynamic SSI analysis; it does
not directly capture any nonlinearity effects because it assumes linear
behavior during the solution process. In addition, the strain-dependent
modulus and damping functions are only taken into account in an
average sense; i.e., to approximate some effects of nonlinearity. They
concluded that the most appropriate method for dynamic analysis of
a soil-structure system is a fully nonlinear method. This method
correctly represents the physics and follows any stress-strain rela-
tionships in a realistic way. In addition, the following characteristics
for a fully nonlinear method are desirable:
• The method follows any prescribed nonlinear constitutive
relationship;
• Interference and mixing of various frequency components occur
naturally using nonlinear material law;
• Irreversible displacements and other permanent changes are
modeled automatically;
• A proper plasticity formulation is used in all of the built-in models,
whereby plastic strain increments are related to stresses; and
• Both shear and compression waves are propagated together in
a single simulation, and the material responds to the combined
(1) effect of both components.
In addition, Lu et al. (2011) illustrated the potential for further
reliance on computer simulations in the assessment of the nonlinear
seismic ground response using nonlinear dynamic analysis. Con-
sidering the aforementioned priorities and capabilities of the fully
nonlinear method for dynamic analysis of soil-structure systems, this
method is used in this study to attain rigorous and reliable results.
Performance-Based Engineering Assessment
Practicing civil engineers usually use inelastic analysis methods for
the seismic evaluation and design of existing and new buildings. The
main objective of inelastic seismic analysis is to achieve more
precise predictions of the expected behavior of the structure
against future probable earthquakes. This has become significantly
 important with the emergence of performance-based engineering as
a technique in the seismic evaluation and design using performance-
level predictions for safety and risk assessment [Applied Technol-
ogy Council (ATC) 1996]. Because structural damage and soil
deformation imply inelastic behavior, traditional design and analysis
procedures based on linear elastic techniques can only predict the
performance level implicitly. In contrast, the objective of the in-
elastic seismic analysis method is to estimate directly and accurately
the magnitude of inelastic deformations and distortions (the per-
formance level). Performance levels describe the state of structures
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
after being subjected to a certain hazard level and are classified as
fully operational, operational, life safe, near collapse, or collapse
(Vision 2000 Committee 1995; FEMA 1997). Overall lateral de-
flection, ductility demand, and interstory drifts are the most com-
monly used damage parameters. The aforementioned five qualitative
performance levels are related to the corresponding quantitative
maximum interstory drifts of , 0:2, , 0:5, , 1:5, , 2:5, and
.2:5%, respectively.
The generic process of inelastic analysis is similar to conven-
tional elastic linear procedures in which engineers develop a model

Fig. 1. (a) Relationships between G=Gmax and the shear strain; (b) relationships between the material damping ratio and the shear strain

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013 / 411

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

 of the building or structure, which is then subjected to a repre-
sentative, anticipated seismic ground motion. The primary differ-
ence with the linear elastic design procedure is that the structural
elements are allowed to deform plastically when the plastic moment
is reached in the element. In many instances, it is important to in-
clude the structural and geotechnical components of the foundation
in the simulation.
Characteristics of the Soils Used
Three soil types with a shear-wave velocity (Vs ) of less than
600 m=s comprising one cohesionless and two cohesive samples
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and representing Classes Ce (Vs . 360 m=s), De (150 m=s
, Vs # 360 m=s), and Ee (Vs # 150 m=s), according to AS 1170.4
[Standards Association of Australia (SAA) 2007] (Earthquake
action in Australia) have been used in this study. The charac-
teristics of the soils used are shown in Table 1. In this study, it is
assumed that the subsoil is homogenous and the shear-wave
velocity is constant with the depth.
The subsoil properties have been extracted from actual in situ and
laboratory tests obtained from three different specific sites in Iran
(Rahvar 2005, 2006a, b). Therefore, these parameters have merit
over the assumed parameters, which may not completely conform to
reality. It is assumed that the water table is well below the ground

Fig. 2. (a) Relationships between G=Gmax and the cyclic shear strain and soil plasticity; (b) relationships between the material damping ratio and the
cyclic shear strain and soil plasticity

412 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

 surface. The shear-wave velocity values, shown in Table 1, have
been obtained from a downhole test, which is a low strain in situ test.
This test generates a cyclic shear strain of about 1024 %, in which
Gmax is the resulting shear modulus. In the event of an earthquake,
the cyclic shear strain amplitude increases and the shear strain
modulus and damping ratio, which both vary with the cyclic shear
strain amplitude, change relatively. Damping and the tangent
modulus are appropriate to the level of excitation at each point in
time and space, which is called the hysteretic damping algorithm.
The use of the fully nonlinear method for dynamic analysis allows
the application of the hysteretic damping algorithm in the model to
capture the hysteresis curves and energy-absorbing characteristics of
the soil. A small strain shear modulus and damping degradation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1

Ms ¼ (2)
1 þ g=gref
where Ms 5 secant modulus (G=Gmax ), g 5 cyclic shear strain, and
g ref 5 Hardin-Drnevich constant. In this study gref 5 0:06 and 0:234
are adopted, which represent the backbone curves suggested by Seed
et al. (1986) for sandy soils and Sun et al. (1998) for clayey soils,
respectively. Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the adopted backbone curves in
this study.
Characteristics of the Structural Model Used

the soil with the strain level can be precisely considered in the In this study, a 10-story concrete moment-resisting building frame
modeling. resting on a strip footing (4 m wide and 12 m long) was selected in
There are several built-in tangent-modulus functions available in conjunction with the three aforementioned soil types. The structural
FLAC2D to implement hysteretic damping by representing the sections were designed according to AS 3600 (SAA 2001) after
variation of the shear modulus reduction factor and damping ratio undertaking a dynamic time-history analysis, initially based on the
(D) with the cyclic strain (g) using the fitting parameters. Those elastic behavior of the structural system and subsequently based on
numerical fitting parameters can generate backbone curves for sand considering the inelastic behavior under the influence of four different
and clay as required. In this study, the model presented by Hardin earthquake ground motions (as a fixed-base model). The specified
and Drnevich (1972), known as the Hardin model is used in order to compressive strength of concrete was assumed to be fc9 5 32 MPa, the
take the hysteretic damping of the soil medium into account. This specified yield strength of steel rebar was assumed to be fy 5 400 MPa,
model is defined as follows: and the concrete density was assumed to be gc 5 25 kN=m3 .
The modulus of elasticity of concrete was calculated according
Table 2. Earthquake Ground Motions Used in this Study to Clause 6.1.2 of AS 3600 (SAA 2001). The performance level of
the structural model was considered to be the life safe level in the
Earthquake Country Year Peak ground acceleration (g) Mw ðRÞ
elastic and inelastic design, indicating the maximum interstory
Northridge United States 1994 0.843 6.7 drifts of the model were less than 1.5%. The characteristics of the
Kobe Japan 1995 0.833 6.8 earthquake ground motions are tabulated in Table 2 and Figs. 3–6.
El Centro United States 1940 0.349 6.9 It was assumed that the earthquake ground motions are bedrock
Hachinohe Japan 1968 0.229 7.5 records.

Fig. 3. Acceleration record of the Northridge earthquake in 1994

Fig. 4. Acceleration record of the Kobe earthquake in 1995

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013 / 413

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Acceleration record of the El-Centro earthquake in1940
Fig. 6. Acceleration record of the Hachinohe earthquake in1968
Fig. 7. Fixed-base model
Numerical Simulation of the Soil-Structure System
In this study, a fully nonlinear time-history dynamic analysis was
done using FLAC2D to define the elastic and inelastic seismic
responses of the concrete moment-resisting frame under the in-
fluence of SSIs. Dynamic analyses were carried out for the following
two different systems: (1) a fixed-base structure on rigid ground
(Fig. 7) and (2) frames considering the subsoil (Fig. 8), using
the direct method of SSI analysis as the flexible-base model. The
analyses were undertaken for two different cases by including the
elastic and inelastic behavior of the structural system. The following
414 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013
Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.
aspects have been incorporated into the dynamic time-history
analysis of the study:
• The nonlinear behavior of the subsoil including material non-
linearity and geometric nonlinearity;
• The elastic and inelastic behavior of the structural system [elastic-
perfectly plastic behavior of concrete elements according to
ATC-40 (ATC 1996)] and the geometric nonlinearity of the
structure (large displacements), in which large displacements—
including the geometric nonlinearity of the structure—were
accommodated by specifying a large-strain solution mode in
FLAC2D; and
• Cracked sections for the RC sections by multiplying the moment
of inertial of the uncracked sections (Ig ) by the cracked section
coefficients (0:35Ig for beams and 0:70Ig for columns).
By taking the geometric nonlinearity into account in the struc-
tural modeling, the P-delta effects can be captured precisely in the
dynamic analysis, which is the most important benefit of using
geometric structural nonlinearity. The P-delta effect refers specifi-
cally to the nonlinear geometric effect of a large tensile or com-
pressive direct stress upon transverse bending and shear behavior.
Compressive stress tends to make a structural member more flexible
in transverse bending and shear, whereas tensile stress tends to
stiffen the member against transverse deformation. This option is
particularly useful when considering the effect of gravity loads on
the lateral stiffness of building structures, as required by certain
design codes.
The soil-structure model (Fig. 8) was comprised of beam ele-
ments to model the beams, columns, and strip foundation; 2D plane-
strain grid elements to model the soil medium; rigid boundaries to
model the bedrock; absorbent boundaries (viscous boundaries) to
avoid reflective waves produced by soil lateral boundaries; and
interface elements to simulate frictional contact and probable slip as
a result of seismic excitation. The Mohr-Coulomb model has been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Components of the soil-structure model in FLAC

Table 3. Base Shear Ratio of the Flexible-Base to the Fixed-Base Models Table 4. Base Shear Ratio of the Flexible-Base to the Fixed-Base Models
from Elastic Analyses from Inelastic Analyses
Fixed-base Fixed-base
Soil Class Ce Soil Class De Soil Class Ee Soil Class Ce Soil Class De Soil Class Ee
model model
Earthquake V (kN) ~ ~
V (kN) V=V ~ (kN) V=V
V ~ ~ (kN) V=V
V ~ Earthquake V (kN) ~ ~
V (kN) V=V ~ (kN) V=V
V ~ ~ (kN) V=V
V ~

Northridge 210 196 0.934 137 0.652 90 0.428 Northridge 140 132 0.942 109 0.778 77 0.550
Kobe 300 285 0.952 190 0.633 141 0.470 Kobe 186 180 0.967 144 0.774 110 0.591
Hachinohe 88 79.5 0.903 53 0.602 36 0.409 Hachinohe 60 57 0.950 47 0.783 28 0.466
El Centro 102 90 0.873 63 0.617 43 0.421 El Centro 68 63 0.926 49 0.721 31 0.455

adopted in this study as the constitutive model in the soil-structure
model to simulate the nonlinear behavior of the soil medium. The
Mohr-Coulomb model is an elastic-perfectly plastic model that has
been used by many researchers (e.g., Conniff and Kiousis 2007;
Rayhani and El Naggar 2008) in modeling the dynamic SSI as
a means to simulate soil behavior under seismic loads in soil-structure
systems.
According to Rayhani and El Naggar (2008), the horizontal
distance between soil boundaries is assumed to be five times the
structure width, and the bedrock depth is assumed to be 30 m. The
strip RC foundation was 4-m wide, 12-m long, and 1-m deep.
Because this is a plane strain problem, the strip foundation width was
taken into account to calculate the moment of inertia of the concrete
element only. In numerical analysis, it is necessary to take into
account the radiation conditions through efficient techniques to
avoid spurious wave reflections at the mesh boundaries (Semblat
2011). Therefore, for the lateral boundaries of the soil medium, the
viscous boundaries (absorbent boundaries) proposed and developed
by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) were used in this study. The
proposed method is based on using independent dashpots in the
normal and shear directions at the model boundaries. In addition,
in the developed soil-structure model in this study, the boundary
conditions at the sides of the model accounted for the free-field
motion that would exist in the absence of the structure. The free-
field boundaries were simulated using a developed technique,
which involved the execution of a one-dimensional free-field
calculation in parallel with the main-grid analysis. Thus, plane
waves propagating upward undergo no distortion at the boundary
because the free-field grid supplies conditions identical to those in
an infinite model.
Kocak and Mengi (2000) elucidated that the rigid boundary
condition is the most appropriate and realistic condition for mod-
eling bedrock in dynamic soil-structure analysis. Dutta et al. (2004),
in their critical review on the SSI idealization, came to the same
conclusion. In addition, in numerical analyses conducted by other
researchers (e.g., Zheng and Takeda 1995; Spyrakos et al. 2009; Elia
et al. 2011) the boundary condition for bedrock was assumed to be
rigid. In consideration of the aforementioned studies, the rigid
bedrock boundary condition was adopted in the soil-structure nu-
merical model in this study.
The foundation facing zone in numerical simulations is separated
from the adjacent soil zone by interface elements. The interfaces
between the foundation and soil are represented as normal and shear
stiffnesses between two planes contacting each other and are mod-
eled as linear spring-slider systems, with the interface shear strength
being defined by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The relative

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013 / 415

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

 interface movement is controlled by the interface stiffness values in
the normal and tangential directions. Based on the recommended
formula estimates for maximum interface stiffness values given by
Itasca Consulting Group (Itasca 2008), the normal and tangential
spring stiffness values were set to 10 times the equivalent stiffness of
the neighboring zone. The interface elements were mainly used to
address the following:
• Transfer the structural reactions to the subsoil beneath the
structure; and
• Simulate the frictional contact and the probable slip caused by the
seismic excitation.
Four different earthquake ground motions (Table 2 and Figs.
3–6) were applied to both systems in two different ways. In the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
direct method (flexible base), the earthquake records were applied to
a combination of the soil and structure directly at the bedrock level.
In the case of modeling the structure as a fixed base (without soil),
the earthquake records were applied to the base of the structural models.
Results and Discussion
The results of the elastic and inelastic analyses, including the base
shear and the interstory drifts, were determined and compared for the
fixed-base and flexible-base models resting on the three different
types of soil in order to identify the effects of subsoil rigidity on the
elastic and inelastic seismic responses of moment-resisting frames

case of modeling the soil and structure simultaneously using the and to predict their performance levels.

Fig. 9. Elastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (Northridge earthquake in 1994)

Fig. 10. Elastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (Kobe earthquake in 1995)

416 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

 According to the results summarized in Tables 3 and 4, the
ratios of the base shear of the flexible-base model (V)~ to that of the
fixed-base model (V) in all models are less than 1 in both elastic and
inelastic cases. However, these ratios are larger and closer to unity
in the inelastic analysis in comparison with the elastic analysis.
Therefore, the base shear of the structures modeled with soil as
a flexible base are always less than the base shear of structures
modeled as a fixed base. These results conform well to Section
5.6.2 of the NEHRP regulations (FEMA 2003) because in this
section reduction of the base shear as a result of SSI was predicted.
Comparing the interstory drifts of the fixed-base and flexible-
base models resting on Soil Classes Ce, De, and Ee for the elastic
case (Figs. 9–12) and inelastic case (Figs. 13–16), respectively,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fixed-base model in both cases. As a result, the performance level of
the model resting on Soil Class Ce remained in the life safe level.
However, for both the elastic and inelastic cases, the interstory drifts
of the flexible-base model resting on Soil Class De increased to more
than 1.5% by incorporating the dynamic SSI. Thus, the performance
level of the model resting on Soil Class De changed from the life safe
level to the near collapse level. The situation was more critical in the
model of Soil Class Ee because the performance level of the model
substantially increased from life safe to near collapse. Such a sig-
nificant change in the interstory drifts, and subsequently on the
performance level of the model resting on Soil Classes De and Ee
(especially for Soil Class Ee), is absolutely dangerous and safety
threatening. Based on the aforementioned results, it was found that

it was observed that the interstory drifts of the flexible-base model by decreasing the dynamic properties of the subsoil, such as the
resting on Soil Class Ce did not differ much from that of the shear-wave velocity (Vs ) and shear modulus (Gmax ), the maximum

Fig. 11. Elastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (El Centro earthquake in 1940)

Fig. 12. Elastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (Hachinohe earthquake in 1968)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013 / 417

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Inelastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (Northridge earthquake in 1994)

Fig. 14. Inelastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (Kobe earthquake in 1995)

lateral deflections of the moment-resisting building frames increased
significantly.
The spectral displacement changed considerably with changes in
the natural period as a result of the SSI effects in both the elastic and
inelastic cases. The changes in the natural period of the fixed-base
model, as well as the flexible-base model resting on the three dif-
ferent soil types in the elastic and inelastic cases, are summarized in
Table 5. According to Table 5, as the shear-wave velocity (Vs ) and
shear modulus (Gmax ) of the subsoil decreases, the natural period of
the soil-structure system increases relatively. Therefore, such in-
creases in the natural period considerably alter the response of the
building frames under seismic excitation. This is because of the fact
that the natural period lies in the long period region of the response
spectrum curve. Hence, the displacement response tends to increase.
Therefore, the performance level of the structure, especially for the
structures analyzed and designed based on the elastic method, changes
from life safe to near collapse or total collapse. The risk for the
structures analyzed and designed based on the inelastic analysis is a bit
smaller; however, the structures are still vulnerable to the change in the
performance level. Thus, design engineers need to precisely take the
effects of dynamic SSI into account in their design, especially for
construction projects on soft soils.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In this study, regarding the importance of the subsoil dynamic
properties on the elastic and inelastic behavior of midrise concrete
moment-resisting building frames under the influence of the SSI,
numerical investigations were conducted on a 10-story concrete

418 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Inelastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (El Centro earthquake in 1940)

Fig. 16. Inelastic interstory drifts for the fixed-base and flexible-base models (Hachinohe earthquake in 1968)

Table 5. Natural Periods of Fixed-Base and Flexible-Base Models for

Elastic and Inelastic Cases the base shear ratios of the fixed base to the flexible base were closer
to unity in comparison with the elastic case.
Natural period, T (s) It was also found that the performance level of the model resting
Flexible-base Flexible-base Flexible-base on Soil Class Ce did not change substantially and remained at the life
Fixed-base model model model safe level. Therefore, the effects of the SSI for elastic and inelastic
Case model (Soil Class Ce) (Soil Class De) (Soil Class Ee) seismic design of moment-resisting buildings founded on Soil Class
Ce was negligible, while the performance level of the model resting
Elastic 1.80 1.88 2.49 3.11
on Soil Classes De and Ee substantially increased (especially for Soil
Inelastic 2.10 2.21 2.88 3.30
Class Ee) from life safe to near collapse. As a result, considering the
SSI effects in elastic and inelastic seismic design of concrete
moment-resisting building frame resting on Soil Classes Ce, De, and moment-resisting building frames resting on Soil Classes De and Ee
Ee. According to the results, it was observed that the base shear of is essential. Generally, by decreasing the dynamic properties of the
the structures modeled with the soil as a flexible base were generally subsoil, such as the shear-wave velocity and shear modulus, the base
less than the base shear of the structures modeled as a fixed base in shear ratios decrease while the interstory drifts of the moment-resisting
both the elastic and inelastic cases. However, in the inelastic case building frames increase relatively. In brief, the conventional elastic

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013 / 419

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.

 and inelastic design procedure excluding SSI is not adequate to
guarantee the structural safety of moment-resisting building frames
resting on Soil Classes De and Ee. Because most of the seismic design
codes used around the world do not explicitly address the SSI, con-
sidering the SSI effects in seismic design as a distinguished part of
these standards is highly recommended. It is also suggested to engi-
neering companies working in regions located in high earthquake risk
zones to consider the SSI influences in dynamic analysis and design of
moment-resisting building frames on soft soils to ensure the designs
are safe and reliable.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996). “Seismic evaluation and
retrofit of concrete buildings.” ATC-40, Redwood City, CA.
Byrne, P. M., and Wijewickreme, D. (2006). “Liquefaction resistance and
post-liquefaction response of soils for seismic design of buildings
in greater Vancouver.” Proc., 59th Canadian Geotechnical Conf., 1267–
1278.
Conniff, D. E., and Kiousis, P. D. (2007). “Elasto-plastic medium for
foundation settlements and monotonic soil–structure interaction
under combined loadings.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech.,
31(6), 789–807.
Dutta, C. H., Bhattacharya, K., and Roy, R. (2004). “Response of low-rise
buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil-structure
interaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 24(12), 893–914.
Elia, G., Amorosi, A., Chan, A. H. C., and Kavvadas, M. J. (2011).
“Numerical prediction of the dynamic behavior of two earth dams in
Italy using a fully coupled nonlinear approach.” Int. J. Geomech., 11(6),
504–518.
FEMA. (1997). “NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation for
buildings.” FEMA 273/274, Washington, DC.
FEMA. (2003). “Recommended provisions for seismic regulation for new
buildings and other structures. Part 2: Commentary.” FEMA 303,
Washington, DC.
Galal, K., and Naimi, M. (2008). “Effect of conditions on the response of
reinforced concrete tall structures to near fault earthquakes.” Struct. Des.
Tall Spec. Build., 17(3), 541–562.
Gazetas, G., and Mylonakis, G. (1998). “Seismic soil-structure interaction:
New evidence and emerging issues.” Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1119–1174.
Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. (1972). “Shear modulus and damping in soils:
design equations and curves.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 7(8), 667–692.
Itasca. (2008). FLAC2D: Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, version 6.0.
User’s manual, Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis.
Kocak, S., and Mengi, Y. (2000). “A simple soil-structure interaction
model.” Appl. Math. Model., 24(8–9), 607–635.
420 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2013
Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:409-420.
Lu, J., Elgamal, A., Yan, L., Law, K. H., and Conte, J. P. (2011). “Large-
scale numerical modeling in geotechnical earthquake engineering.” Int.
J. Geomech., 11(6), 490–503.
Lysmer, J., and Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1969). “Finite dynamic model for infinite
media.” J. Engrg. Mech. Div., 95(6), 859–877.
Maheshwari, B. K., and Sarkar, R. (2011). “Seismic behavior of soil-pile-
structure interaction in liquefiable soils: Parametric study.” Int. J.
Geomech., 11(4), 335–347.
Rahvar. (2005). “Geotechnical and geophysical investigations and foun-
dation design report of Musalla construction site in Tehran.” Rep., Vol. 1,
P. O. Rahvar Pty Ltd., Tehran, Iran, 1–64.
Rahvar. (2006a). “Geotechnical investigations and foundation design report
of Kooh-e-Noor commercial building.” Final Rep., P. O. Rahvar Pty
Ltd., Tehran, Iran, 1–69.
Rahvar. (2006b). “Geotechnical investigations and foundation design report
of Mahshahr train station.” Rep., P. O. Rahvar Pty Ltd., Iran Railways
Authority, Mahshahr, Iran, 1–42.
Rayhani, M. H., and El Naggar, M. H. (2008). “Numerical modelling of
seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 8(6),
336–346.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R., Idriss, I. M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1986). “Moduli and
damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soil.” J. Geotech.
Engrg., 112(11), 1016–1032.
Semblat, J. F. (2011). “Modeling seismic wave propagation and amplifi-
cation in 1D/2D/3D linear and nonlinear unbounded media.” Int. J.
Geomech., 11(6), 440–448.
Spyrakos, C. C, Maniatakis, Ch. A., and Koutromanos, I. A. (2009). “Soil-
structure interaction effects on base-isolated buildings founded on soil
stratum.” Eng. Struct., 31(3), 729–737.
Standards Association of Australia (SAA). (2001). “Concrete structures.”
AS 3600, Sydney, Australia.
Standards Association of Australia (SAA). (2007). “Earthquake action in
Australia.” AS 1170.4, Sydney, Australia.
Sun, J. I., Golesorkhi, R., and Seed, H. B. (1998). “Dynamic moduli
and damping ratios for cohesive soils.” Rep. No.UCB/EERC-88/15,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Tabatabaiefar, H. R., and Massumi, A. (2010). “A simplified method to
determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting
building frames under influence of soil–structure interaction.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 30(11), 1259–1267.
Veletsos, A. S., and Meek, J. W. (1974). “Dynamic behaviour of building-
foundation system.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3(2), 121–138.
Vision 2000 Committee. (1995). “Performance based seismic engineering
of buildings.” Proc., Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC), Structural Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Zheng, J., and Takeda, T. (1995). “Effects of soil-structure interaction on
seismic response of PC cable-stayed bridge.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
14(6), 427–437.