IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF FRAME WITH SOIL STRUCTURE

INTERACTION

Gaikwad M.V1, Ghogare R.B2, Vageesha S. Mathada3

1
Assistant prof, Civil Dept. S.B.Patil college of engg. Indapur, Maharashtra, India
2
Assistant prof. Civil Dept. S.B.Patil college of engg. Indapur, Maharashtra, India
3
Prof Civil Dept. SVERI,s college of engg. Pandharpur, Maharashtra, India

Abstract
For the analysis of a building frame, the columns at the foundation level are considered as fixed. But in real condition it is not the
case. While considering soil in the analysis of building frame 100% fixity may not be ensured. Because of the settlement and
rotation of foundation, shear force and bending moment in superstructure get altered. This effect is called as Soil Structure
Interaction Present work is to study behavior of bare frame & in-filled frame having soil beneath. In these cases three types of
soils are considered, soft, medium stiff and hard. Also in-filled panel is of brick masonry only. Various cases frames are studied.
The following are the cases:

1] Analysis of bare frame with soil.2] Analysis of In-filled frame with Soil.3] Analysis of Bare frame without Soil.4] Analysis of
In-filled frame without Soil Frame with different combinations mentioned above (with/without infill panel, with/without soil) is
analyzed by using ANSYS 14.5. These results are comprised with SSI and without SSI.

Keywords: Soil Structure Interaction, In-Filled Frame, Bare Frame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. INTRODUCTION 1.2 Soil Structure Interaction

Generally structure is analyzed and designed assuming fixed However, the structure always interacts with the soil to
support at the foundation level and hence effect of some extent during lateral loading, imposing soil
compressibility of soil under the foundation is ignored. The deformations that cause the motions of the structure - soil
effect of infill wall of the structure is also not taken in to interface to differ from those that would have been observed
consideration. The structure analyzed and designed in this in the free field. The allowable movement of foundation and
way does not give the actual or realistic behavior. In actual structure depends on soil structure interaction.
condition the structure is generally supported on
compressible soil mass. There exits interaction between 2. PROPERTIES OF MATERIAL
structure and soil mass below foundation. The flexibility of
foundation, the compressibility of soil mass and other Properties for masonry material and components should be
factors play an important role in the redistribution of based on the available construction documents. The
moments and shear forces in the superstructure because of following material properties shall be obtained for the as-
differential settlement of soil mass. build structure. [1] Soil beneath foundation can be any type
of soil; it may be soft soil, may be rock or may be black
cotton soil. So depending upon its type the engineering and
1.1 In-filled frame (Masonry Panel)
mechanical properties of soils are decided using different
An infill (masonry) panel is the partition wall or the types of tests. [2]
cladding element used in the reinforced concrete or steel
frame structure. They are normally considered as Table-1.Properties of different materials for analysis
architectural elements. Engineers often ignored their Material Modulus of Poisson's
presence. Because of complexity of the problem, their Elasticity ratio
interaction with the bounding frame is often neglected in the (KN/mm2)
analysis of building structures. This assumption may lead to In-filled panel (brick 15.4 0.15
an important inaccuracy in predicting the response of the masonry)
structure. This occurs especially when subjected to lateral Concrete 25 0.2
loading. Even though they are considered nonstructural they Soft 10 0.25
interact with the bounding frame when the structure is Soil Medium 35 0.34
subjected to strong earthquake loads or lateral loads. This
hard 80 0.45
interaction may beneficial for structural performance, but
Steel 200 0.3
sometimes this leads to strong damage.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 1 | Jan-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 91
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

3. VALIDATION
Analysis of in-filled frames to resist lateral loads on
buildings in terms of their failure modes, failure loads, and
initial stiffness tested by previous author Riddington is
verified. This verification is made by comparing the results
of the analytical procedures of the previous authors with
those of a finite element model for in-filled frames, which
are verified using ANSYS14.5. [12]

Fig 3 Graph showing Comparison of Displacement for in-

filled frame

4. LINEAR ANALYSIS OF FRAME WITH SOIL.

Three types of soil are used in the analysis namely, soft,
medium stiff and hard. A validation for linear analysis of
bare frame with soil and in-filled frame with soil is made
and found that results are fairly comparable.
Fig.1 Riddington stiff frame: minimum principal stress
(KN/m2) plot at lateral load 460 KN 4.1 Case 1: Linear Analysis of Bare Frame with Soil
The model is modeled in ANSYS 14.5. Mathematical model
is shown in Fig 4. Beam and columns are modeled as two
dimensional frame elements having two degree of freedom
per node while soil is modeled as four noded quadrilateral
isoparametric elements. The lateral load is applied in x
direction at the top of column of the structure. The Section
Properties are, Size of Beam = 0.3 m x 0.45 m & Size of
Column = 0.3m x 0.3 m

Fig.2.Riddington stiff frame: minimum principal stress

(KN/m2) plot at lateral load 460 KN by ANSYS 14.5

Table-2 Displacements for Riddington Frame & present FE

Analysis in ANSYS 14.5
Load (KN) Present FE Riddington
Analysis Frame
50 0.214646 0.235
100 0.429291 0.4705
150 0.643937 0.68
200 0.858582 0.8705 Fig 4 Finite Element Discritization of Bare Frame with soil
250 1.073228 1.129

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 1 | Jan-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 92
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Table -3 Bare frame with Soil: Maximum Displacement Table 6 In-filled frame with soil: Maximum Bending
DISPLACEMENT Moments, Axial Force and Shear Force in beam and column
Soil Column Beam
Soft Soil Medium Stiff Hard Soil
Type Type of
Along X 27.27 mm 19.39 mm 16.84 mm Soil Moment Force Moment Force
Along Y 4.3 mm 1.22 mm 0.32 mm (KNm) (KN) (KNm) (KN)

Rot @ Z 0.0035 0.0045 rad 0.0042 Soft 2.04 60.4 2.01 60.4
rad rad
Medium 2.042 60.5 2.042 60.5
Table 4 Bare frame with soil: Maximum Bending Moments,
Axial Force and Shear Force in beam and column Hard 2.04 60.6 2.04 60.6
Column Beam
Type of Moment Force Moment Force 5. LINEAR ANALYSIS OF BARE FRAME & IN-
Soil (KNm) (KN) (KNm) (KN)
FILLED FRAME WITHOUT SOIL
Soft 75.3 49.98 75.05 49.98
In this case linear analysis of in-filled frame & bare frame
Medium 75.4 50.14 74.8 49.8
without soil is carried out and results are compared. An in-
Hard 75.5 49.72 74.7 49.72
filled frame is idealized using four noded isoparametric
elements. The two dimensional plane frames with soil
4.2 Case 2: Linear Analysis of In-filled Frame with including infill is analyzed by ANSYS 14.5. The infill is
Soil modeled as four noded quadrilateral isoparametric elements.
The thickness of infill is taken as 0.23 m.
The two dimensional plane frames with soil including infill
is analyzed by ANSYS 14.5. The thickness of infill is taken Table 7 In-filled & Bare Frame without Soil: Maximum
as 0.23 m. Rests of the structural characteristics are kept Displacement
same as considered in case 1. DISPLACEMENT
Bare frame In-filled Frame

Along X direction 0.85 mm 0.428 mm

Along Y direction 0.097 mm 0.068 mm
Rotation @ Z 0.00030 radians 0.00021 radians

Table 8 Bare Frame without Soil: Maximum Bending

Moment and forces in Columns and Beams
Column Beam
Moment Axial Moment Shear
(KNm) Force(KN) (KNm) Force(KN)
6.485 94.41 5.46 97.25

Table 9 In-filled Frame without Soil: Maximum Bending

Moment and forces in Columns and Beams
Column Beam
Moment Axial Moment(KNm) Shear
(KNm) Force(KN) Force(KN)
Fig 5 Finite Element Discretization of In-filled Frame With 4.565 87.41 4.46 87.25
Effect of SSI
6. ANALYSIS OF FRAME WITH SOIL AS A
Table 5 In-filled frame with Soil: Maximum Displacement NON-LINEAR MATERIAL.
DISPLACEMENT
Type of Soil Medium 6.1 Analysis of Bare Frame with Soil as a Non-
Soft Soil Hard Soil
Stiff
Along X 14.14 mm 4.37 mm 2.14 mm
Linear Material
Along Y 5.20 mm 2.1 mm 0.59 mm Analysis of bare frame with soil is done using soil as a
Rot @ Z 0.0031 rad 0.0010 rad 0.00055 rad nonlinear material. Finite elements discretization is done
using Figure 4.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 1 | Jan-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 93
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Table 10 Bare frame with Soil: Maximum Displacement 7. CONCLUSION

DISPLACEMENT 1. Analysis of bare frame with Soil Structure Interaction
shows more displacement than the analysis of bare
Soil Type Soft Soil Medium Stiff Hard Soil frame without Soil Structure Interaction.
Along X 27.34 mm 19.48 mm 16.94 mm 2. Also analysis of bare frame with Soil Structure
Interaction shows less shear force as compared with
Along Y 4.34 mm 1.42 mm 0.38 mm analysis of bare frame without Soil Structure
Interaction.
Rot @ Z 0.0037 rad 0.0046 rad 0.0045 rad 3. Analysis of bare frame with Soil Structure Interaction
shows more bending moment as compared with
analysis of bare frame without Soil Structure
Table 11 Bare Frame with Soil as a Nonlinear Material: Interaction.
Maximum Bending Moments, Axial Force and Shear Force 4. Analysis of In-filled frame with Soil Structure
in Beam and Column Interaction shows more displacement than the analysis
Column Beam of In-filled frame without Soil Structure Interaction.
Type of Moment Axial 5. Also analysis of In-filled frame with Soil Structure
Moment Shear
Soil (KN-m) Force (KN-m) Force Interaction shows less shear force as compared with
(KN) (KN-m) analysis of In-filled frame without Soil Structure
Interaction.
6. Analysis of In-filled frame with Soil Structure
Soft 74.87 49.86 74.87 49.86
Interaction shows more bending moment as compared
Medium 74.96 50.05 74.96 50.05 with analysis of In-filled frame without Soil Structure
Hard 75.18 50.27 75.18 50.27 Interaction.
7. In-filled frame have higher lateral stiffness lateral load
resistance than the bare frame. It was also observed
6.2 Analysis of In-filled Frame with soil as a that behavior of masonry in-filled RC frame was
excellent in terms of strength and stiffness.
nonlinear material.
Analysis of in-filled frame with soil is done using soil as a REFERENCES
nonlinear material. Finite elements discretization is done
using Figure 5. [1] ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602 Specifications for
Masonry Structures.
Table 12 In-filled frame with Soil: Maximum Displacement [2] Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering by
Dr.B.C.Punmia, Laxmi Publications.
DISPLACEMENT [3] Geotechnical Engineering by Shashi K. Gulati &
Medium Manoj Datta, Tata McGraw Hill.
Soil Type Soft Soil Hard Soil [4] Finite Element Analysis by Bhavikatti S.S., New
Stiff
14.24 mm 4.47 mm 2.19 mm Age International Pvt Ltd Publications.
Along X
[5] Henry Burton and Gregory Deierlein Fellow (2013)
5.26 mm 2.18 mm 0.63 mm Simulation of Seismic Collapse in Non-Ductile
Along Y
Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings with Masonry
Rot @ Z 0.0033 rad 0.0011 rad 0.00058 rad Infills ASCE ,Journal of Structural Engineering,
pp- 541-587.
[6] Cemalettin Dnmez1 (2013) Seismic Performance
Table 13 Infilled frame with soil: Maximum Bending of Wide-Beam Infill-Joist Block RC Frames in
Moments, Axial Force and Shear Force in beam and column Turkey ASCE, Journal of Performance of
Column Beam Constructed Facilities. pp-485-528.
[7] Cemalettin Dnmez1 (2013) Seismic Performance
Type of Soil Moment Force Moment Force
of Wide-Beam Infill-Joist Block RC Frames in
(KNm) (KN) (KNm) (KN)
Turkey ASCE, Journal of Performance of
Soft 2.09 60.47 2.081 60.6 Constructed Facilities. pp-485-528.
Medium 2.045 60.56 2.049 60.56 [8] Babak Moaveni, Andreas Stavridis and P. Benson
Shing, (2013) Finite-Element Model Updating for
Hard 2.044 60.63 2.043 60.74 Assessment of Progressive Damage in a 3-Story
Infilled RC FrameASCE, Journal of Structural
Engineering, pp-1665-1674.
[9] Basha& H.B. Kaushik (2012) Evaluation of Shear
Demand on Columns of Masonry Infilled
Reinforced Concrete Frames proceeding of 15th

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 1 | Jan-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 94
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

World conferance of Earthquake Engineering, pp-

500-510.
[10] P. G. Asteris, S. T. Antoniou, D. S. Sophianopoulos,
and C. Z. Chrysostomou (2011) Mathematical
Macromodeling of Infilled Frames: State of the Art
ASCE, Journal of structural engineering, pp 1508-
1517.
[11] Hemant B. Kaushik, Durgesh C. Rai and Sudhir K.
Jain, (2009) Effectiveness of Some Strengthening
Options for Masonry-Infilled RC Frames with Open
First Story ASCE ,Journal Of Structural
Engineering , pp-925-937.
[12] M. Mohammadi, V. Akrami and R. Mohammadi-
Ghazi (2011) Methods to Improve Infilled Frame
Ductility ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering,
pp- 646-653.
[13] Asok K. Ghosh, and Amde M. Made (2002) Finite
Element Analysis of Infilled Frames ASCE,
Journal Of Structural Engineering, pp- 881-889.
[14] P. G. Asteris (2003) Lateral Stiffness of Brick
Masonry Infilled Plane Frames ASCE, Journal Of
Structural Engineering, pp-1071-1079.
[15] Behzad Fatahi And S. Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar
(2013) Fully Nonlinear Versus Equivalent Linear
Computation Method For Seismic Analysis Of Mid-
Rise Buildings On Soft Soils ASCE, International
Journal of Geomechanics ,pp- 1010-1052.
[16] Prishati Raychowdhury (2011) Seismic response of
low-rise steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF)
buildings incorporating nonlinear soilstructure
interaction (SSI) Journal of Engineering Structures,
pp 958967.
[17] S. Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar. Behzad Fatahi And
Bijan Samali (2013) Seismic Behavior Of Building
Frames Considering Dynamic Soil-Structure
Interaction ASCE,International Journal Of
Geomechanics pp -409-425.
[18] Hossein Tahghighi_, Kazuo Konagai (2007)
Numerical analysis of nonlinear soilpile group
interaction under lateral loads Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering , pp- 463474.
[19] Ali Abolmaali and Anupong Kararam (2013)
Nonlinear Finite-Element Modeling Analysis of
Soil-Pipe Interaction ASCE, International Journal
Of Geomechanics , pp-197-204.
[20] Nadarajah Ravichandran, and Shada H.
Krishnapillai, (2013) Effect of Deformation-
Induced Suction in the Behavior of Unsaturated
Fine-Grained Soils Using Simplified Finite-Element
Model ASCE, International Journal Of
Geomechanics, pp-483-495.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Issue: 1 | Jan-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 95