Soil Structure Interaction

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
KOUSIK DEB
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, IIT KHARAGPUR
Module 01:
Lecture 01 : Introduction
 Week 1: Introduction, critical study of conventional methods of
shallow foundation design.
 Week 2: General soil-structure interaction problems, contact
pressure and soil-structure interaction for shallow foundation,
concept of subgrade modulus, parameters influencing subgrade
modulus.
 Week 3: Different foundation models (such as one parameter, two
parameter models etc.) with linear and non linear stress-strain
characteristics I
 Week 4: Different foundation models with linear and non-linear
stress-strain characteristics II
 Week 5: Beams and plates on elastic foundation.
 Week 6: Soil-structure interaction for different types of foundation
under various loading conditions
 Week 7: Application of advanced techniques of analysis such as
Finite Difference Method (FDM) to solve the soil-structure
interaction problems.
 Week 8: Computer Programs based solution of different interaction
problems such as footings, beams, plates
 Week 9: Application of foundation models in real life problem
 Week 10: Pile foundation, load transfer mechanism, determination
of pile capacity and negative skin friction
 Week 11: Group action of pile, Laterally loaded piles, Reese and
Matlock’s generalized solution
 Week 12: Uplift capacity of piles and anchors
List of reference materials, books etc
Analytical and Computer Methods in Foundation, Bowels J.E,.
McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 1974
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Desai C.S. and
Christain J.T., McGraw Hill Book Co., New York
Selvadurai A. P. S., 1979, ‘Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation
Interaction’, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam
Hetenyi, 1979, “Beams on Elastic Foundation” The University of
Michigan Press
Woodward, J. and Tomlinson, M. 1994, “Pile Design and
Construction Practice” Chapman & Hall
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. 1980, “Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design” Rainbow-Bridge Book Co./ John Wiley & Sons
Fo unda tio n
A fo unda tio n is tha t pa rt o f struc ture whic h tra nsfe rs the lo a d o f the
struc ture to the sub so il.
Foundation
Shallow Foundation Deep Foundation

Df /B ≤ 1
Moderately deep Deep

1<Df /B ≤ 15 Df /B>15
https://www.quora.com/What-is-strip-footing
Shallow Foundation
1. Strip Footing or Continuous Footing (L>>B)
• Provided for load bearing wall
• Provided for a row of columns which are closely spaced

that their footings overlap each other.
https://civilread.com/different-types-footings/
2. Spread Footing or Isolated Footing

• Provided to support an individual column
• Circular, Square and rectangular

3. Combined Footing
• Provided to support more than one column
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/373446994077811715/
4. Mat or Raft Foundation
• Large slab supporting number of columns and walls under the entire structures
https://www.quora.com/How-many-types-of-footings-are-
there-in-civil-engineering
Choice of particular type of foundation depends on the
• Magnitude of loads
• Nature of the subsoil strata
• Nature of the superstructure
• Specific requirements
The design of foundations generally requires a knowledge of factors as:
• The load that is coming on the foundation
• The requirements of the local building code
• The behavior of soil that will support the foundation system
• The geological condition of the soil

Two basic criteria for design of foundation
• Shear failure or Bearing capacity criteria
• Settlement criteria
Soil Exploration
The primary objectives of soil exploration are
• Determination of the nature of the deposits of soil, depth and
thickness of various soil strata.
• Location of Ground water table and obtaining soil and rock samples
from the various strata.
• The determination of the engineering properties of the soil and
rock strata that affect the performance of the structure.
• Determination of the in-situ properties by performing field tests.
Methods: Test Pits
Boring
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) [N Value]
Cone Penetration Test (CPT): Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT)
Static cone penetration test (SCPT)[qc value]
Pressuremeter Test (PMT)
Dilatometer Test (DMT)
Vane Shear Test (VST)
Geophysical Exploration: Seismic reflection survey
Seismic refraction survey
Seismic Cross-hole survey
Plate Load Test
N. Siva kug a n
C o m m o n In Situ Te sting De vic e s
SPT
VST PMT DMT

CPT
In b o re ho le s
Disturbed but representative Undisturbed samples must be
samples can generally be used for used for
• Grain-size analysis • Consolidation test

• Determination of liquid and plastic • Hydraulic conductivity test
limits • Shear strength test
• Specific gravity of soil solids 1. Direct Shear Test
• Organic content determination 2. Unconfined Compression Test
• Soil classification (Undrained cohesion cu=qu/2)
3. Tri-axial Test
Shear failure or Bearing Capacity Criteria :
The foundation should be design such that the soil below does not fail in shear
Q g = Qc + W f + W s
Qc = wt. of superstructure
Wf = wt. of footing
Wf = wt. of soil/fill
The gross pressure or the gross load intensity (qg)
q g = Qg / A
Ultimate bearing capacity (qu): The maximum gross intensity of loading that soil can support before it
fails in shear.
Net ultimate bearing capacity (qnu): The maximum net intensity of loading at the base of the
foundation that the soil can support before fail in shear.
q nu = q u − γD f
Net safe bearing capacity (qns): The maximum net intensity of loading that soil
can safely support without the risk of shear failure.
qns = qnu / F
Gross safe bearing capacity (qs) : The maximum gross intensity of loading that soil can carry safely
without failing in shear.
q nu
qs = + γD f
F
qu − γD f
qs = + γD f
F
Settlement Criterion
Safe bearing pressure: The maximum net intensity loading that can be allowed on the soil without the
settlement exceeding the permissible value.
Allowable bearing pressure (qa-net): The maximum net intensity of loading that can be
imposed on the soil with no possibility of shear failure or the possibility of excessive
settlement. It is the smaller of the net safe bearing capacity (shear failure criterion) and safe
bearing pressure (settlement criterion)
KOUSIK DEB
Module 01:
Lecture 02 : Bearing Capacity of Soil
Shear failure or Bearing Capacity Criteria :
The foundation should be design such that the soil below does not fail in shear
Q g = Qc + W f + W s
Qc = wt. of superstructure
Wf = wt. of footing
Wf = wt. of soil/fill
The gross pressure or the gross load intensity (qg)
q g = Qg / A
Ultimate bearing capacity (qu): The maximum gross intensity of loading that soil can support before it
fails in shear.
Net ultimate bearing capacity (qnu): The maximum net intensity of loading at the base of the
foundation that the soil can support before fail in shear.
q nu = q u − γD f
Net safe bearing capacity (qns): The maximum net intensity of loading that soil
can safely support without the risk of shear failure.
qns = qnu / F
Gross safe bearing capacity (qs) : The maximum gross intensity of loading that soil can carry safely
without failing in shear.
q nu
qs = + γD f
F
qu − γD f
qs = + γD f
F
Settlement Criterion
Safe bearing pressure: The maximum net intensity loading that can be allowed on the soil without the
settlement exceeding the permissible value.
Allowable bearing pressure (qa-net): The maximum net intensity of loading that can be
imposed on the soil with no possibility of shear failure or the possibility of excessive
settlement. It is the smaller of the net safe bearing capacity (shear failure criterion) and safe
bearing pressure (settlement criterion)
Modes of soil failure
General shear failure (Dense sand / stiff clay)
• A well defined failure surface
• A bulging of ground surface adjacent to the

foundation
• The ultimate load can be easily located.

c u (kPa ) c o nsiste nc y Dr (% ) c o nsiste nc y
0 – 12.5 ve ry so ft
0- 15 ve ry lo o se
12.5- 25 so ft
15- 35 lo o se
25- 50 m e dium
35- 65 m e dium
50- 100 stiff
100- 200 ve ry stiff 65- 85 de nse
>200 ha rd 85- 100 ve ry de nse
N Siva kug a n
Lo c a l she a r fa ilure (m e dium o r re la tive ly lo o se
sa nd / m e dium a nd re la tive ly so ft c o nsiste nc y
c la y)
• Well defined wedge and slip surfaces only

beneath the foundation
• Slight bulging of the ground surface adjacent to

the foundation
• Load settlement curve does not indicate ultimate

load clearly
• Significant compression of the soil directly

beneath the footing
Punc hing she a r fa ilure (ve ry lo o se sa nd /
ve ry so ft c la y)
• Poorly defined shear planes
• Soil zones beyond the loaded area being little

affected
• Significant penetration of a wedge shaped soil

zone beneath the foundation
• Ultimate load can not be clearly recognized

Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory:
The fo o ting is a lo ng strip o r a c o ntinuo us fo o ting re sting o n a de e p
ho m o g e ne o us so il ha ving she a r pa ra m e te r c a nd ϕ.
• Ana lysis is a 2- D c o nditio n i.e fo r strip fo o ting
• The so il fa ils in a g e ne ra l she a r fa ilure m o de
• The lo a d is ve rtic a l a nd c o nc e ntric

Zone – I (zone abd)
• The soil in this zone remains in a state of

elastic equilibrium
• The soil wedge abd immediately beneath

the footing is prevented from undergoing
any lateral movement by the friction and
adhesion between the base of footing and
soil.
Zone II (bed and ae’d) : Zone of radial shear
Zone III (bef and ae’f) : Rankine passive zone

The equation developed for the ultimate bearing
capacity is
1
qu = cN c + γD f N q + γBN γ
2
   
 a2   
N c = cot φ  − 1 a2
Nq =  
 2 φ   φ 
 +   2

2 cos 45
  2 cos  45 + 2  

  2    

1  Kp 
N γ =  2 − 1 tan(φ )
2  cos φ 
 3π φ 
 −  tan φ
where a=e  4 2
ϕ Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factor Ra nja n a nd Ra o , 1991
Nc Nq Nγ
0 5.7 1.0 0.0

5 7.3 1.6 0.5
10 9.6 2.7 1.2
15 12.9 4.4 2.5
20 17.7 7.4 5
25 25.1 12.7 9.7
30 37.2 22.5 19.7
35 57.8 41.4 42.4
40 95.7 81.3 100.4
45 172.3 173.3 297.5
50 347.5 415.1 1153.2
Ultimate bearing capacity for local shear failure
2
Mobilized cohesion: c m = c
3
2 
Mobilized angle of shearing resistance: φ m = tan −1  tan φ 
3 
2 1
q u = cN ' c +γD f N ' q + γBN 'γ
3 2
For sandy soil (c’= 0)
• ϕ ≥ 36° - Purely general shear failure, ϕ ≤ 29° - Purely local shear failure
ϕ between this range represents the mixed state of general and local
shear failure
For c-ϕ soil
• Failure of soil specimen occur at a relatively small strain (less than 5%) -
General shear failure
• If stress – strain curve does not show peak and has a continuously rising
pattern upto a strain of 10- 20% - Local shear failure
Ultimate bearing capacity of strip, square, circular and rectangular footing Bo wle s, 1997
qu = α1cN c + γD f N q + α 2γBNγ
For strip footing : α1 = 1.0, α2 = 0.5

For square footing : α1 = 1.3, α2 = 0.4
For circular footing : α1 = 1.3, α2 = 0.3
 B
For Rectangular Footing: α1 = 1 + 0.3 B  α 2 = 0.51 − 0.2 
 L  L
Effect of water table :
q u = cN c + qN q + 0.5γBN γ
For φ = 0 (saturated clay) , qnu = 5.7 cu

The effect of submergence is to reduce the undrained shearing strength cu due
to a softening effect. The shear strength parameter should be determined in
the laboratory under saturated condition.
Water table located above the base of footing:
The effective surcharge is reduced as the effective weight below the

water table is equal to the submerged unit weight.
q = D w γ + aγ '
As, a = Df - Dw q = γ ' D f + (γ − γ ' ) D w Dw
Df
[ ] 1
q u = c u N c + γ ' D f + (γ − γ ' ) D w N q + γ ' BN γ
2
a
1 B
If Dw = 0 (i.e., a = Df) qu = cu N c + γ ' D f N q + γ ' BN γ
2
1
If a = 0 (i.e., Df = Dw) q u = c u N c + γD f N q + γ ' BN γ
2
Water table located at a depth b below the base of
footing
In this case, the surcharge term is not affected. However,
the unit weight in the third term of bearing capacity
equation is modified as
b
γ = γ '+ (γ − γ ' )
B
Df
1  b 
qu = cu N c + γD f N q + B γ '+ (γ − γ ' ) N γ
2  B  B b
1
If b = 0, i.e., W/T at the base, qu = cu N c + γD f N q + Bγ ' N γ
2
1
If b = B, i.e., W/T at depth below B, qu = cu N c + γD f N q + BγN γ
2
KOUSIK DEB
Module 01:
Lecture 03 : Bearing Capacity of Soil (Continued)
Water table located at a depth b below the base of
footing
In this case, the surcharge term is not affected. However,
the unit weight in the third term of bearing capacity
equation is modified as
b
γ = γ '+ (γ − γ ' )
B
Df
1  b 
2  B  B b
1
If b = 0, i.e., W/T at the base, qu = cu N c + γD f N q + Bγ ' N γ
2
1
If b = B, i.e., W/T at depth below B, qu = cu N c + γD f N q + BγN γ
2
Ultimate bearing capacity analysis for clay soil (Skempton,1951):
Fo r ϕ = 0, q nu = cu N c
 Df  The maximum value of Nc is 7.50

For strip footing : N c = 51 + 0.2 
 B 
 Df 
For square and circular footing : N c = 61 + 0.2 
 B 
The maximum value of Nc is 9
For rectangular footing :
 Df  B
N c = 5.01 + 0.2 1 + 0.2  Fo r Df/B ≤2.5
 B  L
 B
N c = 7.51 + 0.2  Fo r Df/ B >2.5
 L
The analysis is valid for any value of Df/B

Me ye rho f’s Ana lysis :
m
• Bearing capacity for a strip footing at any depth.
• For shallow footing, q0 = γDf
1
qu = cN c + q0 N q + BγN γ
2
Nc, Nq, Nγ depends on roughness of base, depth of

footing, and the shape of footing, in addition to the
angle of shearing resistance ϕ’
Zone I – abd, elastic zone
Zone II- bgd, zone of radial shear
β inc re a se s with a n inc re a se in de pth Df
Zone III – bghm, zone of mixed
a nd is e q ua l to 90 ° fo r de e p fo unda tio n
shear in which shear varies
between radial shear and plane
shear
qu = cN c sc d c ic + q0 N q sq d q iq + 0.5γBN γ sγ d γ iγ
s, d, and i stand for shape factor, depth factor, inclination factor
N c = ( N q − 1) cot(φ ) Nq = e π tan(φ )  φ
tan  45 + 
2 N γ = ( N q − 1) tan(1.4φ )
 2
Sc , Sq , Sγ= 1 for strip footing
Shape, depth, inclination factor for the Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation:
Factors Value For
B Any ϕ
s c = 1 + 0.2 K p  
L
B ϕ > 10°
Shape sq = sγ = 1 + 0.1K p  
L
sq = sγ = 1 ϕ = 0°
 Df  Any ϕ
d c = 1 + 0.2 K p  
Depth  B 
 Df  ϕ > 10°
d q = d γ = 1 + 0.1 K p  
 B 
Bo wle s, 1997 d q = dγ = 1 ϕ = 0°
Shape, depth, inclination factor for the Meyerhof’s bearing capacity equation:
Factors Value For
2
Inclination  α  Any ϕ
ic = iq = 1 −  
V
 90 
R 2 ϕ > 0°
 α 
α iγ = 1 −  
 φ 
H
iγ = 0 Fo r α > 0 ϕ = 0°
 φ
K p = tan 2  45 + 
 2
α angle of resultant R measured from vertical

Bo wle s, 1997
ϕ Nc Nq Nγ Ra nja n a nd Ra o ,1991
0 5.14 1.0 0.0

5 6.5 1.6 0.07
10 8.3 2.5 0.37
15 11 3.9 1.2
20 14.8 6.4 2.9
25 20.7 10.7 6.8
30 30.1 18.4 16.7
32 35.5 23.2 22.0
34 42.2 29.4 31.1
36 50.6 37.8 44.5
38 61.4 48.9 64.0
ϕ Nc Nq Nγ
40 75.3 64.1 93.7

45 133.9 134.9 262.8
50 266.9 319.1 874.0
Ec c e ntric a lly o f lo a de d fo unda tio n:
M
W
W
ex ex
W
W
ey ey
B
For strip footing: B' = B – 2ex B’
For rectangular footing: B’= B – 2ex

L’ = L – 2ey e L’
L’
y
The effective area of footing A’ = B’ x L’

e
The ultimate load bearing capacity of footing can be x
expressed as:
Qu = qu × A'
qu = cN c sc d c ic + q N q sq d q iq + 0.5γBN γ sγ d γ iγ
IS c o de m e tho d (6403- 1981)
qnu = cN c sc d c ic + q ( N q − 1) sq d q iq + 0.5γBN γ sγ d γ iγ W ' q = effective pressure at base
Nc, Nq, Nγ, are the same as those given by Vesic

W’ factor for water table
W’ = 1, when water table is at or below a depth of (Df + B) measured
from the GL
W’ = 0.5, when water table is located at a depth Df or likely to rise to
the base of footing or above
W’ can be linearly interpolated when Df < Dw < Df+B
ϕ Nγ ϕ Nγ
0 0 40 109.4
5 0.4 45 271.3
10 1.2 50 762.84
15 2.6
20 5.4
25 10.9
30 22.4
32 30.2
34 41
36 56.2
38 77.9
Shape Factor:
 B Rectangular footing
1 + 0.2 
Sc  L
1.3 Square and Circular
1 + 0.2 
Sq  L
1.2 Square and Circular
 1 − 0 .4 
 L
Sγ 0.8 Square
0.6 Circular
Depth Factor:
Df  φ For any ϕ
1 + 0. 2 tan 45 + 
dc B  2
Df  φ
ϕ > 10°
dq 1 + 0.1 tan 45 + 
B  2
1 ϕ <10°
Df  φ ϕ > 10°
1 + 0 .1 tan 45 + 
dγ B  2
1 ϕ < 10°
Inclination Factor:
2
 α  
ic ic = iq = 1 −  
 90 
2
 α 

iq = iγ
iγ = 1 −  
 φ 
Bearing capacity of granular soils based on SPT (Standard Penetration Test)
Teng (1962)
qnu =
1
6
[
3 N 2 BRw' + 5(100 + N 2 ) D f Rw ] For strip footing
1 2 '
[
qnu = N BRw + 3(100 + N 2 ) D f Rw
3
] For square and circular footing
qnu = net ultimate bearing capacity in kN/m2

N = average N value corrected for overburden pressure
Df = depth of footing in m; if Df > B take Df = B
Dw = depth of water table below the ground
surface limited to the depth equal to Df
D’w = depth of water table measured from

base level of the footing with a limiting
value equal to the width of footing B
Ranjan and Rao,1991

Bearing capacity of footings on layered soils:
c1 H1 + c2 H 2 + .......... + cn H n  H 1 tan φ1 + H 2 tan φ2 + .......... + H n tan φn 

cavg = φavg = tan −1  
ΣH i  ΣH i 
Factors influencing bearing capacity :
i) For cu = 0
qu = qN q + 0.5γBN γ
a) Relative density or ϕ
b) Width of the footing
c) Depth of the footing
d) Unit weight of the soil
e) Position of ground water
ii) Fo r ϕ = 0
qu = cu N c + q
a) The bearing capacity of footing on a cohesive soil is unaffected by

the width of footing
b) The net ultimate bearing capacity (qnu = Nccu) is not affected by the
depth of foundation.
c) For ϕ = 0, Nc = 5.14 (smooth base) and 5.7 (rough base)

KOUSIK DEB
Module 01:
Lecture 04 : Bearing Capacity of Soil (Continued)
Ex.1: A rectangular footing of size 3m X 6m is founded at a depth of 1m in a homogeneous
sandy soil. The water table is at a great depth. The unit wt of soil 18 kN/m3 . Determine
net ultimate bearing capacity c= 0 and ϕ = 40°
Using Te rza g hi’s the o ry
1  B
qnu = qu − γD f = γD f ( N q − 1) + γBN γ 1 − 0.2 
2  L
From table Nq = 81.3, Nγ = 100.4 for ϕ = 40°

B = 3m and L = 6m
1  3
qnu = 18 ×1× (81.3 − 1) + ×18 × 3 ×100.4 × 1 − 0.2 ×  = 3885.12kN / m 2
2  6
Using Me ye rho f’s the o ry
qnu = qult − γD f = γD f N q sq d q + 0.5γBN γ sγ d γ − γD f
φ B φ  Df 
sq = sγ = 1 + 0.1 tan 2 (45 + )  = 1.23 d q = d γ = 1 + 0.1 tan(45 + )
°
 = 1.07
2 L 2  B 
From table Nq = 64.1, Nγ = 93.7 for ϕ = 40°
qnu = 18 × 1× 64.1× 1.23 × 1.07 + 0.5 × 18 × 3 × 93.7 ×1.23 ×1.07 − 18 ×1 = 4830.11kN / m 2

Using IS C o de Me tho d
qnu = γD f ( N q − 1) sq d q + 0.5γBN γ sγ d γ
B B
sq = 1 + 0.2  = 1.10 sγ = (1 − 0.4 ) = 0.8
L L
Df φ d γ = 1.07 Nq = 64.1, Nγ = 109.4 for ϕ = 40°
d q = 1 + 0.1( ) tan(45 + ) = 1.07
B 2
qnu = 18 × 1× (64.1 − 1) ×1.10 ×1.07 + 0.5 ×18 × 3 ×109.4 × 0.8 ×1.07 = 3865.29kN / m 2
Exa m ple :
[ ]
q u = c u N c + γ ' D f + (γ − γ ' ) D w N q +
1
2
γ ' BN γ
Dw
Df
a
B
Df
B b
b
γ = γ '+ (γ − γ ' )
B
1  b 
2  B 
Types of Settlement found in shallow foundation
Settlement of shallow foundation
Total Settlement St = Si + Sc + S s
Si= Immediate or elastic settlement (<7 days). It takes place during the application of
loading. In clays, the settlement is due to the change in the shape of the soil without a
change in volume or water content. It is neglected as compared to long term settlement.
Sc= Primary consolidation settlement. It is due to the consolidation.
Ss= Secondary Compression Settlement. It occurs because of volume change occurring

due to rearrangement of soil particles.
• Immediate settlement is not time dependant
settlement.
• Primary consolidation and secondary settlement
are time dependant.
• For granular soils, immediate settlement is the
entire settlement.
• In inorganic clays, Primary consolidation
accounts major part of the settlement.
• In organic clays, secondary compression
accounts major part of the settlement .
Se ttle m e nt C a lc ula tio n
Im m e diate Se ttle m e nt (fo r c lay ) C o nso lidatio n Se ttle m e nt (fo r c lay )
1− µ 2  Cc  p0 + ∆p 
S i = qB I f Sc = ∑ H log10  
 E  1 + e0  p0 
 
or S c = ∑ mv H 0 ∆p
Me ye rho f(1965)
Se ttle m e nt (g ranular so il o r sand) (all Im m e diate Se ttle m e nt)
(a ) Pla te lo a d te st m e tho d ( IS- 1888- 1982) De Be e r a nd Ma rte ns (1957)
(b ) Me tho d b a se d o n SPT (IS 8009- Pa rt 1- 1976) q 

 qc  C = 1.9  c 
(c ) Me tho d b a se d o n SC PT H  σ 0 + ∆σ  =   σ0 
S = 2.3 log  whe re C 1. 5 or
C  σ0  σ0 
(d) Se m i- e m piric a l Me tho d (Buism a n, 1948) σ0  σ + ∆σ 

S = ∑ 2.3 H log 0 
E  σ0 
Im m e dia te o r e la stic se ttle m e nt
1− µ 2 
S i = qB I f
 E 
 
where q= Net foundation pressure

μ= Poisson’s ratio
E= Elastic Modulus of soil
If= Influence factor
Types of corrections: 1. Depth correction

2. Rigidity correction for raft foundation
If for Flexible Foundation If for Rigid
Foundation Ra nja n a nd Ra o , 1991
Shape Centre Corner Average
Circle 1.0 0.64 0.85 0.86
Square 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82

Rectangle
L/B= 1.5 1.36 0.68 1.2 1.06
L/B= 2 1.52 0.76 1.3 1.2
L/B= 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
L/B= 10 2.52 1.26 2.25 2.10
L/B= 100 3.38 1.69 2.96 3.40

KOUSIK DEB
Module 01:
Lecture 05 : Settlement of Shallow Foundation
1− µ 2  Cc  p0 + ∆p 
S i = qB I f Sc = ∑ H log10  
 E  1 + e0  p0 
 
Me ye rho f(1965)

 qc  C = 1.9  c 
S = 2.3 log  whe re C 1. 5 or
C  σ0  σ0 

S = ∑ 2.3 H log 0 
E  σ0 
Im m e dia te o r e la stic se ttle m e nt
1− µ 2 
S i = qB I f
 E 
 
where q= Net foundation pressure

E= Elastic Modulus of soil

Foundation Ra nja n a nd Ra o , 1991
Circle 1.0 0.64 0.85 0.86
Square 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82

Rectangle
L/B= 1.5 1.36 0.68 1.2 1.06
L/B= 2 1.52 0.76 1.3 1.2
L/B= 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
L/B= 10 2.52 1.26 2.25 2.10
L/B= 100 3.38 1.69 2.96 3.40

Types of soil μ
1. Clay, saturated 0.4-0.5

2. Clay, unsaturated 0.1-0.3
3. Sandy clay 0.2-0.3
4. Silt 0.3-0.35
5. Sand(dense) 0.2-0.4
5.1 Coarse(e=0.4-0.7) 0.15
5.2 Fine grained 0.25
6. Rock 0.1-0.4
Ra nja n a nd Ra o , 1991
Elastic Modulus Calculation (E)
• Normally consolidate clay, Eu= (750 to 1200) cu

• Heavily over consolidated clay, Eu= (1500 to 2000) cu
• Normally consolidated sensitive clay, Eu= (200 to 600) cu
Young’s Modulus Calculation (E)
Type of soil SPT (N) or CPT(qc)
Sand (NC) E= 500( N+15)
Sand (OC) E= 250( N+15)
Sand( Saturated) E= 250( N+15)
Gravely Sand E= 1200( N+6)
Clayey sand E= 320( N+15)
Silty sand E= 300( N+6)
Soft clay E= 5 to 8 qc
Ranjan and Rao, 1991 * E is in kN/m2.

Elastic Modulus Calculation (E)
Soil type E (kg/cm2) Soil type E (kg/cm2) Soil type E (kg/cm2)
Clay
Sand Sand and
1. Very soft 20-150
gravel
2. soft 50-250 1. silty 70-210
3. medium 150-500 1. Loose 500-1450

2. loose 100-240
4. Hard 500-1000
3.dense 480-800 2. Dense 1000-1900
5. Sandy 250-2500
Ranjan and Rao, 1991

Fox’s correction for
settlement of flexible IS :8009 (Pa rt I) - 1976
rectangular footing of L x B
at a depth D
C o nso lida tio n se ttle m e nt
Cc  p + ∆p 
Consolidation settlement Sc = ∑ H log10  0 
1 + e0  p0 
where p0 = initial effective overburden pressure before applying foundation load
∆p= vertical stress at the centre due to application of load
Cc= Compression index
e0= initial void ratio
mv= coefficient of volume compressibility

3. Pore water pressure correction
Sivakugan
C o rre c tio ns
Corrections for the effect of 3-D consolidation
S c (3 D ) = ηS c (1D )
where η= correction factor. Following values can be taken:

η = 1-1.2 very sensitive clay
=0.7-1.0 Normally consolidated clay
=0.5-0.7 Over consolidated clay
=0.3-0.5 Heavily over consolidated clay
1− µ 2  Cc  p0 + ∆p 
S i = qB I f Sc = ∑ H log10  
 E  1 + e0  p0 
 
Me ye rho f(1965)

 qc  C = 1.9  c 
S = 2.3 log  whe re C 1. 5 or
C  σ0  σ0 

S = ∑ 2.3 H log 0 
E  σ0 
Settlement of Foundations on Granular Soils
• Due to consolidation, short term field tests are not suitable to determine the settlement of cohesive soil.
Plate load test method ( IS-1888-1982)
Df
W=5Bp
http://gogopixlibrary.com/bearing+failure+of+plate
https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/plate-load-test- https://www.raeburndrillingnorthern.com/insitu-testing
bearing-capacity-calculation-soil/13321/
Procedure
• Rough mild steel plates of size 30cm, 45 cm, 60cm, or 75 cm , square or circular in shape are
generally used.
 5mm (maximum thickness) fine sand is placed before placing the plate.
 Smaller sizes are used for dense or stiff soil.
 larger size are used for loose or soft soil.
 Water is removed by pumping out. Df
W=5Bp
• Loads on the test plate may be applied by gravity loading or reaction loading.
• Seating load of 70g/cm2 or 0.07 kg/cm2 is first applied and released after sometimes.
• Load is applied at 1/5th the estimated safe load up to failure or at least 25mm
settlement, whichever is earlier.
• At each load, settlement is recorded at time intervals of 1, 2.25, 4, 6.25, 9, 16

and 25 mins and thereafter at hourly interval.
 For clayey soils, the load is increased when the time-settlement curve
indicates that settlement has exceeded 70-80% of the probable ultimate
settlement or at the end of 24 hours.
 For other soils, the load is increased when the rate of settlement drops
to a value less than 0.02 mm/min.
IS:1888- 1982
• Settlement are recorded through a minimum of two dial gauges mounted on independent
datum and resting diametrically opposite ends of the plates.
• The load settlement curve for the test plate can be plotted from the test data.
IS 1888-1982
Settlement Calculation from plate load test
• Terzaghi and Peck (1948):
Sf
=
(
 B f B p + 30 )

2

(
S p  B p B f + 30 )

(Fo r g ra nula r so il)
Where Sf= settlement of a foundation of width Bf (cm)

Sp= settlement of a foundation of width Bp (cm)at the same load intensity as on the
foundation
Im po rta nt C o nside ra tio ns
• Plate size smaller than 30 cm should never be used in any case.

• It may lead to misleading results, if the soil at site is not homogenous.
• Capillarity in sand bed increases its effective vertical stress or its stiffness. The test
will result in a severe underestimate of actual settlement.
• For clayey soil, immediate settlement is not the main settlement. However, plate load
test gives the immediate test.
Sf Bf
=
Sp Bp
Ultimate Bearing capacity Calculation from plate load test
• For cohesionless soil quf Bf

=
qup Bp
• For cohesive soil quf = qup
Where, quf= ultimate bearing capacity of footing

qup= ultimate bearing capacity of plate
Sa fe Be a ring c a pa c ity C a lc ula tio n fro m pla te lo a d te st
• The safe bearing capacity of a footing can be determined from the load-
settlement curve of the test plate.
• If the permissible settlement of foundation of width Bf is Sf, corresponding

settlement Sp of test plate Bp can be found from equation given earlier.
Then the load intensity corresponding to Sp is read from load settlement
curve and taken as safe bearing capacity of foundation.
KOUSIK DEB
Module 02:
Lecture 06 : Design of Shallow Foundation
Safe Bearing capacity Calculation from plate load test
• If the load test is carried out above the natural water table, the settlement computed
from the curve will have to be corrected if there is a likelihood of rise in water table in
future.
Settlement computed from plate load test
Actual settlement =
Correction factor (C w )
Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1974) IS:8009 method

 Dw  ′ 
 Dw
C w = 0.5 + 0.5  C w = 0.5 + 0.5  ≤1
 Df + B  B 
 
Dw= depth of water table below the ground level D’w= depth of water table
Df= depth of foundation from base of footing
B= width of foundation
Granular soil (Allowable bearing pressure)
Peck, Hanson and Thronburm (1974)
q a − net = 0.044 C w N S a t / m2 (From settlement consideration)

(Isolated foundation)
where Sa= permissible settlement in mm
Cw= correction factor for water table position
N= SPT blow counts
 Dw 
Cw = 0.5 + 0.5 
D +B
 f 
Dw= depth of water table below ground surface
Df= depth of foundation
q a − net = 0.088 C w N S a t / m2 5 ≤ N ≤ 50 (For raft foundation)

Pe rm issib le va lue s a s pe r IS: 1904- 1978
Footing type Sand and hard clay Plastic clay
Max. Settlement Differential Angular Max. Differential Angular
Settlement Distortion Settlement Settlement Distortion
1. Isolated footing
1.1 Steel Structure 50 mm 0.0033L 1/300 50 mm 0.0033L 1/300
1.2 RCC Structure 50 mm 0.0015L 1/666 75 mm 0.0015L 1/666
2. Raft foundation
2.1 Steel 75 mm 0.0033L 1/300 100 mm 0.0033L 1/300

Structure
2.2 RCC structure 75 mm 0.002L 1/500 100 mm 0.002L 1/500
* L is the length of deflected part of wall/raft or c/c distance between columns. F.O.S= 2.5 to 3
Example: Determine the net allowable bearing capacity or pressure of a square footing of size 3m
x 3m resting on sand with the following properties. Water table is located at a depth of 2.5 m from
the ground surface. Depth of foundation is 1.5 m. The permissible settlement is 50mm and factor
of safety against bearing is 2.5.
EL. (m) Corrected N value (SPT)

-1.5 16
-2.25 22
-3.0 20
-3.75 27
-4.5 29
-5.25 30
-6 32
-6.75 32
-7.5 33
-8.25 35
-9.0 40
Be a ring c a pa c ity o f g ra nula r so ils b a se d o n SPT (Sta nda rd Pe ne tra tio n Te st)
Te ng (1962)
1
[
qnu = 3 N 2 BRw' + 5(100 + N 2 ) D f Rw
6
] Fo r strip fo o ting
1 2 '
[
qnu = N BRw + 3(100 + N 2 ) D f Rw
3
] Fo r sq ua re a nd
c irc ula r fo o ting
q nu = ne t ultim a te b e a ring c a pa c ity in kN/ m 2
N = a ve ra g e N va lue c o rre c te d fo r o ve rb urde n pre ssure
Df = de pth o f fo o ting in m ; if Df > B ta ke Df = B

Ra nja n a nd Ra o ,1991
Dw = de pth o f wa te r ta b le b e lo w the g ro und surfa c e lim ite d to the de pth
e q ua l to Df
D’w = de pth o f wa te r ta b le m e a sure d fro m b a se le ve l o f the fo o ting with a
lim iting va lue e q ua l to the width o f fo o ting B
KOUSIK DEB
Module 02:
Lecture 07 : Design of Shallow Foundation (Continued)
Example: Determine the net allowable bearing capacity or pressure of a square footing of size 3m
x 3m resting on sand with the following properties. Water table is located at a depth of 2.5 m from
the ground surface. Depth of foundation is 1.5 m. The permissible settlement is 50mm and factor
of safety against bearing is 2.5.
EL. (m) Corrected N value (SPT)

-1.5 16
-2.25 22
-3.0 20
-3.75 27
-4.5 29
-5.25 30
-6 32
-6.75 32
-7.5 33
-8.25 35
-9.0 40
Be a ring c a pa c ity o f g ra nula r so ils b a se d o n SPT (Sta nda rd Pe ne tra tio n Te st)
Te ng (1962)
1
[
qnu = 3 N 2 BRw' + 5(100 + N 2 ) D f Rw
6
] Fo r strip fo o ting
1 2 '
[
qnu = N BRw + 3(100 + N 2 ) D f Rw
3
] Fo r sq ua re a nd
c irc ula r fo o ting
q nu = ne t ultim a te b e a ring c a pa c ity in kN/ m 2
N = a ve ra g e N va lue c o rre c te d fo r o ve rb urde n pre ssure
Df = de pth o f fo o ting in m ; if Df > B ta ke Df = B

Ra nja n a nd Ra o ,1991
Dw = de pth o f wa te r ta b le b e lo w the g ro und surfa c e lim ite d to the de pth
e q ua l to Df
D’w = de pth o f wa te r ta b le m e a sure d fro m b a se le ve l o f the fo o ting with a
lim iting va lue e q ua l to the width o f fo o ting B
Me tho d b a se d o n SPT (IS 8009- Pa rt 1- 1976)
Settlement computed from SPT value

Actual settlement =
Correction factor (W ′)
Granular soil
Peck, Hanson and Thronburm (1974) (From settlement
consideration)
q a − net = 0.044 C w N S a t / m 2 (Isolated
foundation)
where Sa= permissible settlement in mm
Cw= correction factor for water table position
N= SPT blow counts
 Dw 
Cw = 0.5 + 0.5 
D +B
 f 
Dw= depth of water table below ground surface
Df= depth of foundation
q a − net = 0.088 C w N S a t / m2 5 ≤ N ≤ 50 (For raft foundation)

Design of Raft Foundation on Clay
Foundation Elastic Modulus Calculation (E)
• Normally consolidate clay, Eu= (750 to
Circle 1.0 0.64 0.85 0.86 1200) cu
Square 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82 • Heavily over consolidated clay, Eu=
Rectangle (1500 to 2000) cu
L/B= 1.5 1.36 0.68 1.2 1.06 • Normally consolidated sensitive clay, Eu=
(200 to 600) cu
L/B= 2 1.52 0.76 1.3 1.2
L/B= 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
L/B= 10 2.52 1.26 2.25 2.10
L/B= 100 3.38 1.69 2.96 3.40

at a depth D
KOUSIK DEB
Module 02:
Lecture 08 : Design of Shallow Foundation (continued)
Design of Raft Foundation on Clay
Foundation Elastic Modulus Calculation (E)
• Normally consolidate clay, Eu= (750 to
Circle 1.0 0.64 0.85 0.86 1200) cu
Square 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82 • Heavily over consolidated clay, Eu=
Rectangle (1500 to 2000) cu
L/B= 1.5 1.36 0.68 1.2 1.06 • Normally consolidated sensitive clay, Eu=
(200 to 600) cu
L/B= 2 1.52 0.76 1.3 1.2
L/B= 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
L/B= 10 2.52 1.26 2.25 2.10
L/B= 100 3.38 1.69 2.96 3.40

at a depth D
C o rre c tio ns
Corrections for the effect of 3-D consolidation
S c (3 D ) = ηS c (1D )
where η= correction factor. Following values can be taken:

η = 1-1.2 very sensitive clay
=0.7-1.0 Normally consolidated clay
=0.5-0.7 Over consolidated clay
=0.3-0.5 Heavily over consolidated clay
KOUSIK DEB
Module 02:
Lecture 09 : Soil-Structure Interaction for Shallow Foundation: Concept of Subgrade Modulus
Soil-Structure Interaction:
Analysis of interaction between structural elements such as beams and

plates of finite or infinite extend resting on idealized deformable media
• Isolated Footing
• Combined Footing General soil-structure interaction problems
• Raft Foundation
• Pile Foundation
• Transportation system like Pavement, Rail tracks
The idealization of the supporting soil medium is usually represented by:

Mechanical or mathematical (numerical model)
Soil Idealization
Winkler Model (1867) •Winkler’s Idealization consists of a system of
mutually independent, discrete, linearly elastic
springs with spring constant k
•Deflection of the soil medium at any point on the
surface is directly proportional to the stress applied
at that point and independent of stresses applied at
other locations
Selvadurai (1979)
Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction by Plate Load Test
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: Ratio of Load per
unit area of horizontal surface of a mass of soil to
corresponding settlement of the surface. It is determined
at the slope of the line joining between the point
corresponding to zero settlement and the point of
1.25mm settlement of a load-settlement curve obtained
from a plate load test on the soil using a 75cm diameter
or smaller diameter (not less than 30 cm) loading plate
with corrections for the size of plate [IS 9214-1979] .
IS 9214-1979
Plate load test method ( IS-1888-1982) [see Lecture 5]
• Due to consolidation, short term field tests are not suitable to determine the settlement of cohesive soil.
Df
W=5Bp
https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/plate-load-test- https://www.raeburndrillingnorthern.com/insitu-testing
bearing-capacity-calculation-soil/13321/
Procedure
• Rough mild steel plates of size 30cm, 45 cm, 60cm, or 75 cm , square or circular in shape are
generally used.
 5mm (maximum thickness) fine sand is placed before placing the plate.
 Smaller sizes are used for dense or stiff soil.
 larger size are used for loose or soft soil.
 Water is removed by pumping out. Df
W=5Bp
• Loads on the test plate may be applied by gravity loading or reaction loading.
• Seating load of 70g/cm2 or 0.07 kg/cm2 is first applied and released after sometimes.
• Load is applied at 1/5th the estimated safe load up to failure or at least 25mm
settlement, whichever is earlier.
• At each load, settlement is recorded at time intervals of 1, 2.25, 4, 6.25, 9, 16

and 25 mins and thereafter at hourly interval.
 For clayey soils, the load is increased when the time-settlement curve
indicates that settlement has exceeded 70-80% of the probable ultimate
settlement or at the end of 24 hours.
 For other soils, the load is increased when the rate of settlement drops
to a value less than 0.02 mm/min.
IS:1888- 1982
• Settlement are recorded through a minimum of two dial gauges mounted on independent
datum and resting diametrically opposite ends of the plates.
• The load settlement curve for the test plate can be plotted from the test data.
KOUSIK DEB
Module 02:
Lecture 10: Soil-Structure Interaction for Shallow Foundation: Concept of Subgrade Modulus(Continued)
Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction by Plate Load Test
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: Ratio of Load per unit area of
horizontal surface of a mass of soil to corresponding settlement of the
surface. It is determined at the slope of the line joining between the
point corresponding to zero settlement and the point of 1.25mm
settlement of a load-settlement curve obtained from a plate load test
on the soil using a 75cm diameter or smaller diameter (not less than 30
cm) loading plate with corrections for the size of plate [IS 9214-1979] .
IS 9214-1979
IS 1888-1982
Size of Plate
Terzaghi, 1955
Shape of Plate
Embedded depth of the Plate
Generally, the modulus of elasticity of granular soils increases with increasing confining pressure. Thus,
in case of granular soil medium it is assumed that modulus of elasticity increases linear with depth.
However, in case of cohesive soil, k may be assumed to be independent of depth.
KOUSIK DEB
Module 03:
Size of Plate
Terzaghi, 1955
Shape of Plate
Embedded depth of the Plate
Generally, the modulus of elasticity of granular soils increases with increasing confining pressure. Thus,
in case of granular soil medium it is assumed that modulus of elasticity increases linear with depth.
However, in case of cohesive soil, k may be assumed to be independent of depth.
Values of k1 for square plates, 0.305 m x 0.305m or a long strip of 0.305m width, resting on
sand (Terzaghi, 1955)
Type of sand Loose Medium Dense
MN/m2/m MN/m2/m MN/m2/m
Dry or moist sand 6250-18700 18700-93600 93600-312000

(range)
Dry or moist sand 12500 40500 156000
(proposed value)
Submerged sand 7800 25000 97000
(proposed value)
Source: Selvadurai (1979)

Values of k1 for square plates, 0.305 m x 0.305m or a long strip of 0.305 m width, resting
on overconsolidated clay (Terzaghi, 1955)
Type of clay Stiff Very stiff Hard
kN/m2/m kN/m2/m kN/m2/m
Range 15600-31200 31200-62400 >62400
Proposed value 23400 46800 93600
For normally consolidated clays: Typical range is from 1560 kN/m2/m for
very soft clays to 7800 kN/m2/m for stiff clay
Source: Selvadurai (1979)

Range of Modulus of subgrade reaction k
Soil k, kN/m2/m
Loose sand 4800-16000
Medium dense sand 9600-80000
Dense sand 64000-128000
Clayey medium dense sand 32000-80000
Silty medium dense sand 24000-48000
Clay:
qu ≤ 200 kPa 12000-24000
200 < qu ≤ 800 kPa 24000-48000
qu > 800 kPa >48000
Bo wle s, 1997
Few Comments
•Area of test plate should be about 10-15% of area of foundation

•The plate should be located at a depth equal to that of the foundation
•The modulus of subgrade reaction may be taken as a constant upto
bearing pressure values of about ½ x (the ultimate bearing capacity of
the subgrade)
•Modulus of subgrade reaction can also be determined by Triaxial test,
California bearing ratio (CBR) test and Consolidation (Oedometer) test
IS 9214-1979 Corrections as per IS 9214-1979
k value can be defined as a pressure of Correction for Load-
0.07 MPa divided by the corresponding Deflection Curve
settlement (standard plate size = 75 cm
diameter)
A seating load of 3.1 kN is applied (0.007

IS 9214-1979
MPa for 75 cm diameter plate). It can be
increased to 6.2 kN also. Additional 31 kN
load is applied (0.07 MPa for 75 cm
diameter plate). Further load is applied
with an increment of 15.5 kN up to 93
kN.
IS 9214-1979
Corrections as per IS 9214-1979
Correction for Bending of the Plate Correction for using plate size less than 75 cm
IS 9214-1979
IS 9214-1979
Correction for Saturation
KOUSIK DEB
Module 03:
IS 9214-1979 Corrections as per IS 9214-1979
k value can be defined as a pressure of Correction for Load-
0.07 MPa divided by the corresponding Deflection Curve
settlement (standard plate size = 75 cm
diameter)
A seating load of 3.1 kN is applied (0.007

IS 9214-1979
MPa for 75 cm diameter plate). It can be
increased to 6.2 kN also. Additional 31 kN
load is applied (0.07 MPa for 75 cm
diameter plate). Further load is applied
with an increment of 15.5 kN up to 93
kN.
Correction for Bending of the Plate
IS 9214-1979
Correction for using plate size less than 75 cm Terzaghi (1955)
2
 B + B1 
k = k1   Sandy Soil
 2 B 
B  Clayey Soil (Stiff Clay)
k = k1  1 
B
B1 = side dimension of square plate used
in the plate load test (=0.305m)
B= side dimension of any full size
foundation or any plate size
k1= subgrade modulus obtained from
plate load test of plate size B1 (=0.305m)
k=desired value of subgrade modulus for
IS 9214-1979 full size foundation or any plate size
d 
k Corrected =   × Uncorrected value
 ds 
d=deformation of the soil with normal moisture content under a unit load of 31 kN in
addition to the seating load of 3.1 kN
ds = deformation of the soil when saturated under a unit load of 31 kN in addition to
the seating load of 3.1 kN applied during saturation.
Correction for Load-Deflection Curve
Correction for Bending of the Plate
Correction for using plate

size less than 75 cm
IS 9214-1979
Example (as per IS: 9214-1979)
The diameter of the plate is 75cm. The moisture content of the soil is 18%. The correction for the saturation
is 0.8 (i.e d/ds = 0.8). The load-deflection data are as follows:
Load (kN) Dial Gauge Reading (mm)

DG1 DG2 DG3
3.1 26.00 15.10 11.26
34.1 25.72 14.62 10.88
49.6 25.37 14.52 11.73
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
94.1 24.77 13.85 9.99
KOUSIK DEB
Module 03:
Lecture 13: Different Foundation Models
Elastic modulus (E) and Poisson's ratio (µ) can be determined from Triaxial test
Model for Soil Behavior or Soil Idealization
Winkler Model (1867) •Winkler’s Idealization consists of a system of
mutually independent, discrete, linearly elastic
springs with spring constant k
•Deflection of the soil medium at any point on the
surface is directly proportional to the stress applied
at that point and independent of stresses applied at
other locations
Selvadurai (1979)
Stress and settlement distribution below a foundation
Limitation of Winkler Model
•Lack of continuity among the springs
•Linear response of springs
•Deflections are confined to the
loaded regions only
•The displacement will be constant
whether the soil is subjected to an
rigid load or a uniform flexible load.
(Bo wle s, 1997) https://www.slideshare.net/shamjithkeyem/ge-imodule4rajesh-sir

Filonenko-Borodich Model (1940, 1945)
Individual springs are connected by a thin

elastic membrane under a constant
tension of T
Selvadurai (1979)
Pasternak Model (1954)
The springs are connected to a shear layer of incompressible vertical elements which
deform in transverse shear only.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5363154/ Selvadurai (1979)

Plane Strain: A state of strain in which the strain normal to
the x-y plane (εz) and shear strain γxz and γyz are assumed to
be zero (i.e εz =0, γxz =0 and γyz =0)
https://www.quora.com/Solid-Mechanics-What-are-the-differences-between-plane-stress-and-plane-strain-conditions
https://medium.com/@atuljaiswal1246/different-types-of-foundation-used-in-construction-8b8a5d1dacee
https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/shapes-of-isolated-footing-8
KOUSIK DEB
Module 03:
Lecture 14: Different Foundation Models (Continued)
KOUSIK DEB
Module 03:
Kerr Model (1946)
Kerr suggested that shear layer be embedded in between two spring layers.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5363154/ Selvadurai (1979)

KOUSIK DEB
Module 04:
KOUSIK DEB
Module 04:
Hetenyi Model (1946)
Individual springs are connected by an elastic plate or an elastic beam [Beams or Plates
on Elastic Foundation]
Beam: Beams on Winkler Spring
(i) Infinite Beam (Application: The Railroad Tracks, long strip footings, combined footings)
(ii) Semi-Infinite Beam
(iii) Beam with Finite Length (Continuous strip footings, combined foundations)
Beam on uniform flexural rigidity and subgrade modulus
Beam on variable flexural rigidity and subgrade modulus
Continuity in the Foundation
Beams on Two-Parameter Soil Medium
Beams on non-linear spring
Plate: Plates on Winkler Spring
(i) Infinite Plate (Pavement subjected to aircraft or traffic loads, raft foundation subjected
to highly localized, isolated column loading)
(ii) Plate with Finite Length
Rectangular Plate (Raft foundation)
Circular Plate (Circular Foundation such as circular raft, circular tank foundation)
Plates on Two Parameter Soil Medium
Plates on non-linear spring
KOUSIK DEB
Module 04:
Lecture 18: Beams on Elastic Foundation
KOUSIK DEB
Module 04:
Lecture 19: Beams on Elastic Foundation (Continued)
KOUSIK DEB
Module 04:
Hetenyi, 1979
KOUSIK DEB
Module 05:
Hetenyi, 1979
Hetenyi, 1979
KOUSIK DEB
Module 05:
KOUSIK DEB
Module 05:
KOUSIK DEB
Module 05:
KOUSIK DEB
Module 05:
NP
TE
KOUSIK DEB
L
Module 06:
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
NP
Module 06:
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
E L
T
P
N
KOUSIK DEB
Module 06:
E L
PT
N
L
Due
TE
NP
E L
PT
N
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
NP
Module 06:
NP
TE
L
Due
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
Module 06: NP

NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
KOUSIK DEB
Module 07:
KOUSIK DEB
Module 07:
KOUSIK DEB
Module 07:
A
KOUSIK DEB
Module 07:
Proposed Modifications
•Continuity among the springs (by membrane, shear layer, beams or plates)
•Non-Linear response of springs or soils
•Variation of displacement within the loaded region is obtained
•Deflections are not confined to the loaded regions only (Pasternak Model)
•Time Dependent Response
•Continuity among the foundation soil layers
Continuity among the foundation soil layers
KOUSIK DEB
Module 07:
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
NP
Module 08:
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
Module 08: NP

Beam: (i) Infinite Beam (Application: The Railroad Tracks, long
Beams on Two Parameter Soil Medium strip footings, combined footings): With Finite Width
(ii) Semi-Infinite Beam: With Finite Width
(iii) Beam with Finite Length (Continuous strip
footings, combined foundations): With Finite Width and
Under Plane-strain condition
L
TE
https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/single-railwayhttps://medium.com/@atuljaiswal1246/different-types-
-track-15604669348.html of-foundation-used-in-construction-8b8a5d1dacee
NP
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
E L
PT
N
KOUSIK DEB
Module 08:
Beam: (i) Infinite Beam (Application: The Railroad Tracks, long
Beams on Two Parameter Soil Medium strip footings, combined footings): With Finite Width
(ii) Semi-Infinite Beam: With Finite Width
(iii) Beam with Finite Length (Continuous strip
footings, combined foundations): With Finite Width and
Under Plane-strain condition
E L
PT
N
https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/single-railwayhttps://medium.com/@atuljaiswal1246/different-types-
-track-15604669348.html of-foundation-used-in-construction-8b8a5d1dacee
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTIONE
L
P T
N
KOUSIK DEB
Module 08:
V. A. Patil, V. A. Sawant and Kousik Deb, (2010) Use of Finite and Infinite Elements in Static Analysis of Pavement, Interaction and
Multiscale Mechanics, Techno Press, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp: 95-110.
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
NP
Module 08:
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
Beam with variable EI and K
L
TE
NP
E L
PT
KOUSIK DEB
N
Module 09:
Lecture 41: Plates on Elastic Foundation
Plates on Elastic Foundation
The Poisson-Kirchhoff Plate Theory
(i) The displacements of the middle surface of the plate are
assumed to be small as compared to the thickness of the
plate. The strains and rotations of the plate are also
assumed to be small compared with unity.
L
(ii) The component of stress normal to the middle surface is
E
assumed to be small as compared to the other components
T
of stress and hence can be neglected.
P
(iii) Plane cross-sections normal to the un-deformed middle
surface remain normal to the deformed middle surface.
N
(iv) Since the deflections of the plate are small, it is assumed
that there is no stretching of the middle surface during
bending i.e. if the plate deflects in the z-direction then for
points located on the middle surface u=0, v=0, where u and
v are the components of the displacement vector in the x
and y direction, respectively.
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
KOUSIK DEB
Module 09:
Lecture 42: Plates on Elastic Foundation (Continued)
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTIONE
L
P T
N
KOUSIK DEB
Module 09:
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
c
E L
PT
N
L
TE
KOUSIK DEB
NP
Module 09:
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
NP
TE
L
E L
PT
N
KOUSIK DEB
Module 09:
Lecture 45: Use of Finite Difference Method for Soil Structure Interaction Problems
E L
PT
N
E L
PT
N
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
Lecture 46: Use of Finite Difference Method for Soil Structure Interaction Problems (Continued)
Provide the values of required Two-Parameter Model (Non-Linear) Two-Parameter Model (Linear)
parameters: q, L, B, N, k, G, H, EI,
dwf/dx (at x=b)
Provide the values of required Provide the values of required
parameters: q, L, b, N, k, G, H, w, parameters: q, L, b, N, k, G, H
dw/dx
Form the Stiffness Matrix and Load Vector
Solve and get the settlement values Form the Stiffness Matrix and
Load Vector
Solve and get the settlement values
Determine dwb/dx, d2wb/dx2,
dw3b/dx3, dwf/dx
1st Trial
Determine dw/dx Solve and get the settlement
Determine slope, bending moment, 1st Trial values
shear force
No Are the differences of End
settlements within
tolerance limit?
No Are the differences of
values within tolerance
limit? Yes
Beam on Two-
Yes End
Parameter Model
(Linear) End
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
Provide the values of required Two-Parameter Model (Non-Linear) Two-Parameter Model (Linear)
parameters: q, L, B, N, k, G, H, EI,
dwf/dx (at x=b)
Provide the values of required Provide the values of required
parameters: q, L, b, N, k, G, H, w, parameters: q, L, b, N, k, G, H
dw/dx
Solve and get the settlement values Form the Stiffness Matrix and
Load Vector
Solve and get the settlement values
Determine dwb/dx, d2wb/dx2,
dw3b/dx3, dwf/dx
1st Trial
Determine dw/dx Solve and get the settlement
Determine slope, bending moment, 1st Trial values
shear force
No Are the differences of End
settlements within
tolerance limit?
No Are the differences of
values within tolerance
limit? Yes
Beam on Two-
Yes End
Parameter Model
(Linear) End
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
Selvadurai (1979)
Selvadurai (1979)
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
Selvadurai (1979)
Selvadurai (1979)
Selvadurai (1979)
Selvadurai (1979)
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
Some Applications of the Described Models
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil System
Kousik Deb, S. Chandra and P. K. Basudhar (2005) Settlement Response of a Multi Layer Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Granular Fill-Soft Soil System, Geosynthetics International, Thomas Telford, Vol. 12, No 6, pp: 288-298.
Subinay Saha Roy and Kousik Deb (2019) Effect of Aspect Ratio of Footings on Settlement Response of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil System, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Taylor & Francis
(Published online, doi: 10.1080/19648189.2019.1655484)
Settlement Response
Square Footing Rectangular Footing Settlement Response

in x- direction
Subinay Saha Roy and Kousik Deb (2019) Effect of Aspect Ratio of Footings on Settlement Response of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil System, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Taylor & Francis
(Published online, doi: 10.1080/19648189.2019.1655484)
Beam: Beams on Winkler Spring
(i) Infinite Beam (Application: The Railroad Tracks, long strip footings, combined footings)
(ii) Semi-Infinite Beam (Pile)
(iii) Beam with Finite Length (Continuous strip footings, combined foundations)
Plate: Plates on Winkler Spring
(i) Infinite Plate (Pavement subjected to aircraft or traffic loads, raft foundation subjected
to highly localized, isolated column loading)
(ii) Plate with Finite Length
Rectangular Plate (Raft foundation)
Circular Plate (Circular Foundation such as circular raft, circular tank foundation)
https://theconstructor.org/transportation/rigid-pavement- https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/single-railwayhttps://medium.com/@atuljaiswal1246/different-types-
composition-structure/5495/ -track-15604669348.html of-foundation-used-in-construction-8b8a5d1dacee
Beams Resting on Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Kousik Deb (2012) Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Beams Resting on Multilayered
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil, Interaction and Multiscale Mechanics, Techno Press, Vol. 5. No.
4. pp: 369-383.
KOUSIK DEB

Module 10:
Lecture 52: Soil-Structure Interaction for Pile Foundation
Cylindrical Storage Tank Foundation
Amit Kumar Das and Kousik Deb (2017) Response of Cylindrical Storage Tank Foundation Resting on Tensionless Stone
Column-Improved Soil, International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. 17, No. 1, Paper No: 04016035, Page: 1-19 (doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000697)
Settlement Response
When the tank is empty When the tank is full
Amit Kumar Das and Kousik Deb (2017) Response of Cylindrical Storage Tank Foundation Resting on Tensionless Stone
Column-Improved Soil, International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. 17, No. 1, Paper No: 04016035, Page: 1-19 (doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000697)
Stone Column-Supported Embankment Resting on Soft Soil
Kousik Deb, (2010) A Mathematical Model to Study the Soil Arching Effect in Stone Column-Supported
Embankment Resting on Soft Soil, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Elsevier, Vol. 34, No. 12, pp: 3871-3883.
Pile Foundation
1. To carry vertical compressive load W
If all the (majority amount) loads are

transferred to the pile tips
End bearing pile Soft soil

Friction
If all the (majority amount) loads are
transferred to the soil along the length of pile
Hard layer
Friction pile End bearing
2. To carry horizontal load (foundation
for retaining wall, bridge, abutments)
Laterally loaded piles: Horizontal load
acts perpendicular to the pile axis.
Murthy (2001)
3. To resist uplift or tension load Tu
Tension pile or Uplift: Below some

structures such as transmission
tower, offshore platform which are
subjected to tension.
Tension Pile
Murthy (2001)
W
Pile under vertical compressive load
The ultimate point load can be expressed in the form
Ab = sectional area of the pile at its base
Soft soil
The ultimate skin friction can be written in the form Friction
fs = unit skin friction resistance Hard layer

As= surface area of the pile in contact with soil End bearing
The ultimate load capacity (Qu) can be written in the

form
Piles in granular soils:
Driven Piles:
Tomlinson's / Berezantsev’s Method
For a driven piles in sand
φc – in situ value of angle of shearing resistance
The maximum base or tip or point bearing

resistance is limited to 11000 kN/m2 Berezantsev’s Bearing Capacity factor
Murthy (2001)
Skin friction:
δ = angle of friction between the pile and the soil L σh σh
K= the lateral earth pressure
σh = the soil pressure acting normal to the pile surface (horizontal)
σ‘ = the effective vertical overburden pressure
Ultimate Skin friction resistance (Qf ) :
σ’av = average effective overburden pressure over the embedded length of the
pile
Broms (1966) recommends the value of K and δ shown in Table for piles driven into sand
Pile material δ Values of K

Loose sand Dense sand
Steel 20 0.5 1
Concrete 0.75φ 1 2
Timber 0.67φ 1.5 4

Critical depth: Critical depth may vary from about
Depend on φ’ value and diameter of pile (D). 15D in loose to medium sand to
20D in dense sand.
The allowable load Qa :
Qu = ultimate load
F = factor of safety = 2.5
Note: The bored piles in sand have a point bearing or top resistance (qpu) is
1/2 to 1/3 of the value of the driven piles. In case of bored pile in sand, the
lateral earth pressure coefficient can be calculated as: K = 1-sin . The value
of K varies from 0.3 to 0.75 (average value of 0.5). The  value is equal to 
for bored piles excavated in dry soil and a reduced value is considered if
slurry has been used during excavation.
Piles in clay :
The ultimate load capacity of pile (Qu):
In clays, qpu = cuNc and fs = ca = αcu
cub = undrained cohesion at the base of pile

Nc = bearing capacity factor for a deep foundation. For circular and square piles Nc = 9
(proposed by Skempton). Pile must go at least 5D inside the bearing stratum.
α = adhesion factor
cu = undrained cohesion in the embedded length of pile
Values of reduction factor α
cu (kPa) consistency Murthy (2001)
0 – 12.5 very soft

12.5-25 soft
25-50 medium
50-100 stiff
100-200 very stiff
>200 hard
Consistency N value α value Ranjan
and Rao,
Bored piles Driven cast in situ 1991
piles
Soft to very soft <4 0.7 1.0
Medium 4-8 0.5 0.7
Stiff 8-15 0.4 0.4
Stiff to hard >15 0.3 0.3
KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
Lecture 53: Soil-Structure Interaction for Pile Foundation (Continued)
W
Pile under vertical compressive load
The ultimate point load can be expressed in the form
Ab = sectional area of the pile at its base
Soft soil
The ultimate skin friction can be written in the form Friction
fs = unit skin friction resistance Hard layer

As= surface area of the pile in contact with soil End bearing
The ultimate load capacity (Qu) can be written in the

form
Piles in granular soils:
Driven Piles:
Tomlinson's / Berezantsev’s Method
For a driven piles in sand
φc – in situ value of angle of shearing resistance
The maximum base or tip or point bearing

resistance is limited to 11000 kN/m2
Berezantsev’s Bearing Capacity factor
Murthy (2001)
Skin friction:
δ = angle of friction between the pile and the soil L σh σh
K= the lateral earth pressure
σh = the soil pressure acting normal to the pile surface (horizontal)
σ‘ = the effective vertical overburden pressure
Ultimate Skin friction resistance (Qf ) :
σ’av = average effective overburden pressure over the embedded length of the
pile
Broms (1966) recommends the value of K and δ shown in Table for piles driven into sand
Pile material δ Values of K

Loose sand Dense sand
Steel 20 0.5 1
Concrete 0.75φ 1 2
Timber 0.67φ 1.5 4

Critical depth: Critical depth may vary from about
Depend on φ’ value and diameter of pile (D). 15D in loose to medium sand to
20D in dense sand.
The allowable load Qa :
Qu = ultimate load
F = factor of safety = 2.5
Note: The bored piles in sand have a point bearing or top resistance (qpu) is
1/2 to 1/3 of the value of the driven piles. In case of bored pile in sand, the
lateral earth pressure coefficient can be calculated as: K = 1-sin . The value
of K varies from 0.3 to 0.75 (average value of 0.5). The  value is equal to 
for bored piles excavated in dry soil and a reduced value is considered if
slurry has been used during excavation.
Piles in clay :
The ultimate load capacity of pile (Qu):
In clays, qpu = cuNc and fs = ca = αcu
cub = undrained cohesion at the base of pile

Nc = bearing capacity factor for a deep foundation. For circular and square piles Nc = 9
(proposed by Skempton). Pile must go at least 5D inside the bearing stratum.
α = adhesion factor
cu = undrained cohesion in the embedded length of pile
Values of reduction factor α
cu (kPa) consistency Murthy (2001)
0 – 12.5 very soft

12.5-25 soft
25-50 medium
50-100 stiff
100-200 very stiff
>200 hard
Consistency N value α value Ranjan
and Rao,
Bored piles Driven cast in situ 1991
piles
Soft to very soft <4 0.7 1.0
Medium 4-8 0.5 0.7
Stiff 8-15 0.4 0.4
Stiff to hard >15 0.3 0.3
Types of load test
Vertical load test Lateral load test Pull out test

(compression) (Tension)
Ø It is carried out to establish

load-settlement relationship
under compression and
ØThese two tests are carried out
determine the allowable load on
when piles are required to resist the
pile.
lateral loads or uplift loads.
Initial test
It is to be carried out on test piles to estimate the allowable load, or to predict
the settlement at working load. It does not carry any load coming from
superstructure.
Where there is no specific information about subsoil strata and no past
experience, for a project involving more than 200 piles, there should be
minimum two initial tests.
The minimum load on test piles should be twice the safe load or the load at
which total settlement attains a value of 10% of pile diameter for single pile and
40 mm in group.
Routine test
It is carried out as a check on working pile to assess the
displacement corresponding to working load.
The minimum no. of routines tests should be half percentage of the piles
used. It may vary up to 2 percent or more depending upon the nature of
soil strata and importance of structure.
A working pile is driven or cast in situ along with other piles to carry the load
from superstructure. The load on such piles should be up to 1.5 times the safe
load or the load at which the total settlement attains 12mm for single pile and 40
mm for group pile , whichever is earlier.
Procedure: As per IS: 2911 part IV (1979) (Under Compressive Load)
• The test shall be carried out by applying the
load on a RCC cap over the pile.
• The load is applied in increment of 20 % of the
Step 1 safe load.
• Settlements are recorded with at least three

dial gauges.
Step 2
• Each stage of loading shall be maintaining till
the rate of movement of pile top is not more
Step 3 than 0.1 mm /hr.
https://www.slideshare.net/Group-Delta/design-construction-and-axial-load-testing-of-48
-inch-diameter-castinsteelsheel-piles
Group action of piles:
Pile cap
Soil
Pile group
https://www.deltares.nl/en/software/module/d-pile-group-cap https://theconstructor.org/geo
-layered-soil-interaction-3/ technical/foundations/pile/pa
ge/2/
• Ultimate bearing capacity of pile group≠ sum of all individual piles present in the group.
• Group efficiency,
where Qug= ultimate load bearing capacity of pile group

Qu= ultimate load bearing capacity of single pile
n= no. of piles
ü ηg< 1 for smaller spacing between piles
ü ηg >1 for driven piles in loose to medium soil
ü ηg=1 for larger spacing of piles
Minimum pile spacing
Length of Friction Friction Point

pile piles in piles in clay bearing pile
sand
< 12m 3D 4D 3D
12 to 24 m 4D 5D 4D
> 24m 5D 6D 5D
As per IS: 2911-I-1979Bearing pile- 2 D
Friction pile- 3D
Loose sand or fill deposit-2D
Pile group in clay
Pile may fail in one of the following way
• By block failure (when spacing is less than 2-3 times diameter of a pile)
• By individual pile failure ( when piles are spaced wider)
• The ultimate load capacity of the pile group by block failure is given by:
Undrained
strength
of clay along
Undrained strength length of block
of clay at base ofBearing
pile group capacity Perimeter of Embedded
c/s area of block length of pile
factor=9 block
• The ultimate load capacity of the pile group by individual pile
failure is given by:
Settlement of a pile group
Consolidation Theory
Empirical Expression
Elastic Analysis
Settlement of a pile group
• Pile group in clay
1. For the displacement piles or friction piles in homogeneous clay (Floating Pile)
where qn= Net pressure on pile
E= young’s Modulus
Consolidation settlement
where p0 = initial effective overburden pressure before applying foundation load
∆p= vertical stress at the centre of the layer due to application of load
Cc= Compression index
e0= initial void ratio
mv= coefficient of volume compressibility
H= thickness of each layer
2. Piles driven into a firm or strong stratum through an overlying clay stratum.
3. For bored piles or end bearing piles bearing on firm stratum
Equivalent raft acts at the base of the pile.

•Pile group in sand (Empirical Expression)
Ø Skempton (1953):
For same average load Q/pile acting in driven piles, the settlement ratio of group of pile
to single pile can be obtained as:
where B= width of the pile group in ‘meter’
Sg= settlement of pile group
Si= settlement of single pile
Ø Meyerhof (1959):
It is for square pile groups driven in sand
where S= ratio of pile spacing to pile diameter

r= no. of rows in the pile group
Settlement of pile group based on Elastic Analysis
In the elastic analysis, pile is divided into number of uniformly loaded elements. The
solution is obtained by using displacement compatibility between the pile and adjacent
soil. The displacement of the pile is obtained by considering the compressibility of the
pile under axial loading and displacement of soil is obtained by using Mindlin’s equation
for the displacement of soil mass due to the loading within the soil.

Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. 1980, “Pile Foundation Analysis and Design” Rainbow-Bridge Book
Co./John Wiley & Sons
KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
Settlement of Pile Group under compressive load by Interaction Factor Approach
Interaction Factor () =Additional settlement caused by the adjacent pile/Settlement of pile under its own load
Pile in a homogeneous Semi-Infinite Mass
For a group of ‘n’ identical pile, the settlement k of any pile k in the group is given by
where 1 is the settlement of single pile under unit load
Pj is the load on pile j
kj is the interaction factor for spacing between the pile k and j
where Ep is Elastic modulus of pile, Es is the elastic modulus of soil and RA is the ratio of
area of pile section AP to the area bounded by outer circumference of pile.

Poulos and Davis (1980)
End Bearing Piles End Bearing Piles on
Floating Piles
on Rigid Stratum Compressible Stratum
Interaction Factors for Floating Piles
Interaction Factor (F) for Floating Piles, L/d=10
Source of Figure: Poulos and Davis (1980)
Correction Factor for Poisson’s Ratio on F Correction Factor for Finite Layer Depth on F
Source of Figures: Poulos and Davis (1980)
Correction Factor for Enlarged Base on F
Effect of varying Elastic Modulus on F
End Bearing Piles on Rigid Stratum
Interaction Factor (E) for End Bearing Piles, L/d=10
End Bearing Piles on Compressible Stratum
Interaction Reduction Factor FE, L/d=10 Source of Figure: Poulos and Davis (1980)
Interaction Reduction Factor FE, L/d=25 Interaction Reduction Factor FE, L/d=50
Interaction Reduction Factor FE, L/d=100
Load transferred to Pile Tip (Single Pile)
(a) Floating Pile
=0CKCv
where  = proportion of applied load transferred
to the pile tip
0 is the tip-load proportion for incompressible
pile in uniform half-space (=0.5)
CK is the correction factor for pile
compressibility
Cv is the correction factor for Poisson’s Ratio of
soil
(b) End Bearing Pile on Stiffer Stratum
=0CKCbCv
where Cb is the correction factor for stiffer bearing
stratum
Correction Factor (CK) for Correction Factor (Cv) for
compressibility of pile on 0 Poisson’s Ratio on 0
Correction Factor (Cb) for stiffness of bearing stratum on 0
Settlement of Single Pile
Floating Pile
where I = I0RKRhRv
 is the settlement of pile head
P is the applied load on pile
I0 is the settlement influence factor for
incompressible pile in semi-infinite mass
(=0.5)
RK is the correction factor for pile compressibility
Rh is the correction factor for finite depth of
layer on the rigid base
Rv is the correction factor for Poisson’s Ratio of
soil
Source of Figures: Poulos
h is the total soil layer depth
and Davis (1980) Settlement Influence Factor (I0) for incompressible Pile (s=0.5)
Correction Factor (RK) for Pile Compressibility Correction Factor (Rh) for finite depth of layer
Correction Factor (R) for Poisson's ratio
End Bearing Pile on Stiffer Stratum
where I = I0RKRbRv
Rb is the correction factor
for stiffness of bearing
stratum
and Davis (1980)
Correction Factor (Rb) for Stiffness of bearing stratum
Source of Figure: Poulos
and Davis (1980) Correction Factor (Rb) for Stiffness of bearing stratum (L/d=5)
KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
Example: (a) Design a pile group consisting of RCC solid piles for a column of size 650mm × 650 mm
carrying a load of 1125 kN (Total). The exploration data reveal that the sub-soil consists of deposit of
clay extending to a greater depth. The other data of the deposit are: Compression index = 0.10, Initial
void ratio = 0.9, Saturated unit weight = 20 kN/m3, Unconfined compressive strength= 70kN/m2.
Proportion the pile group for the permissible settlement of 25 mm. Design the pile group by considering
both bearing and settlement criteria. The water table is considered at the ground level. Use a factor of
safety 2.5 against bearing and assume adhesion factor of 0.7. Correction factor for the effect of 3-D
consolidation or pore water pressure is 0.7.
(b) Determine the settlement of pile group by Interaction Factor Approach. The Elastic Modulus of Pile
(Ep) and Soil (Es) are 27000 MPa and 26 MPa, respectively.

Fox’s Correction Curves
IS :8009 (Part I) -1976

KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
Settlement ratio (Rs) of friction pile group with rigid cap in deep uniform soil mass
Source of Table: Poulos and Davis (1980)
Settlement ratio (Rs) of end bearing pile group with rigid cap resting on a rigid stratum
Source of Figures:
Correction Factor for compressibility of
Correction Factor for finite layer on Rs bearing stratum on Rs
and Davis (1980) Correction Factor for Poisson’s Ratio on Rs
Settlement of Pile Group in Layered Soil
Settlement of Single Pile in Layered Soil
Settlement of Single Pile founded within the first layer of a system of m
layers of different soils
o is the settlement of a pile in a layer of depth h=h1 (h1>L)
Ij is the displacement influence factor I on the pile axis at the top level of
the layer j
Esj is the elastic Modulus of the layer j
P is the load acting on the pile
Equivalent Diameter (De)of single pier Equivalent length (Le) of single pier for
for same settlement as pile group same settlement as pile group
and Davis (1980) Influence factors (I) for settlement beneath the centre of a pier
KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
Determination of Pile Group Settlement
1.Based on Interaction Factor ()
(i) Floating Pile (F) [corrections can be applied for finite depth of the soil layer,
enlarged base of the pile and if Poisson's Ratio of the soil is less than 0.5]
(ii) End Bearing Piles on Rigid Stratum (E) [Effect of Poisson's Ratio of the soil is
not significant]
(iii) End Bearing Piles on Stiffer Compressible Stratum [ = F - FE (F - E)]
Note: The settlement of the single pile per unit load (1) can be determined
(i) Floating Pile (single) [corrections can be applied for finite depth of the soil layer,
compressible pile and if Poisson's Ratio of the soil is less than 0.5]
(ii) End Bearing Pile on Stiffer Stratum [corrections can be applied for compressible
pile, compressibility of bearing stratum and if Poisson's Ratio of the soil is less
than 0.5]
2. Based on the Settlement ratio (Rs) [corrections can be applied for finite depth of
the soil layer, compressibility of bearing stratum and if Poisson's Ratio of the soil
is less than 0.5]
(i) Friction pile group
(ii) End bearing pile group
Interaction Factors for Floating Piles (F)
Correction Factor for Poisson’s Ratio on F Correction Factor for Finite Layer Depth on F
Correction Factor for Enlarged Base on F
End Bearing Piles on Rigid Stratum (E)
End Bearing Piles on Compressible Stratum
Interaction Reduction Factor FE, L/d=10 Source of Figure: Poulos and Davis (1980)
not significant]
than 0.5]
is less than 0.5]
Settlement of Single Pile
Floating Pile
where I = I0RKRhRv
 is the settlement of pile head
P is the applied load on pile
I0 is the settlement influence factor for
incompressible pile in semi-infinite mass
(=0.5)
RK is the correction factor for pile compressibility
Rh is the correction factor for finite depth of
layer on the rigid base
Rv is the correction factor for Poisson’s Ratio of
soil
h is the total soil layer depth
and Davis (1980) Settlement Influence Factor (I0) for incompressible Pile (s=0.5)
Correction Factor (RK) for Pile Compressibility Correction Factor (Rh) for finite depth of layer
Correction Factor (R) for Poisson's ratio
End Bearing Pile on Stiffer Stratum
where I = I0RKRbRv
Rb is the correction factor
for stiffness of bearing
stratum
and Davis (1980)
Correction Factor (Rb) for Stiffness of bearing stratum
and Davis (1980) Correction Factor (Rb) for Stiffness of bearing stratum (L/d=5)
not significant]
than 0.5]
is less than 0.5]
Settlement ratio (Rs) of friction pile group with rigid cap in deep uniform soil mass
Settlement ratio (Rs) of end bearing pile group with rigid cap resting on a rigid stratum
Source of Figures:
Correction Factor for compressibility of
Correction Factor for finite layer on Rs bearing stratum on Rs
and Davis (1980) Correction Factor for Poisson’s Ratio on Rs
Settlement of Pile Group in Layered Soil
Settlement of Single Pile in Layered Soil
Settlement of Single Pile founded within the first layer of a system of m
layers of different soils
o is the settlement of a pile in a layer of depth h=h1 (h1>L)
Ij is the displacement influence factor I on the pile axis at the top level of
the layer j
Esj is the elastic Modulus of the layer j
P is the load acting on the pile
Equivalent Diameter (De)of single pier Equivalent length (Le) of single pier for
for same settlement as pile group same settlement as pile group
and Davis (1980) Influence factors (I) for settlement beneath the centre of a pier
KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
KOUSIK DEB

Module 11:
Example: The following data was obtained in a vertical pile load test on 300 mm diameter pile in sand.
Determine the settlement of a group of 9 piles arranged in a square pattern. The spacing (equal) between the
piles is 1000 mm.
Load (kN) Settlement (mm)

50 2.5
100 5.0
200 10.0
300 17
400 28
500 45
600 70
Negative skin friction:
Negative skin friction in single piles

The magnitude of negative skin friction, Fn for a single pile may be estimated as below:
Cohesive soils:
where P= perimeter of pile

Lc= Length of pile in compressible stratum
ca= unit adhesion=αcu
α= adhesion factor
cu= undrained cohesion of compressible layer
Cohesionless soils:
where K=lateral earth pressure coefficient

δ= angle of friction between pile and soil (1/2φ to 2/3φ)
Negative skin friction in pile groups
The magnitude of negative skin friction, Fng for a pile group passes through soft and unconsolidated
soil may be estimated as below:
Higher of value from these two Equation is

used in design
where n= number of piles in the group

Pg= perimeter of group
γ= unit weight of soil within pile group up to a depth of Lc
Ag= area of pile group within perimeter Pg
Settlement Response of Laterally Loaded Piles
Subgrade Modulus Approach
Elastic Analysis
Determination of modulus of subgrade reaction (kh)
Full scale lateral loaded pile test
Plate load test
Empirical correlations with other soil properties
Values of ks1 for square plates, 1ft x 1ft resting on overconsolidated clay (Terzaghi, 1955)

Type of clay Stiff Very stiff Hard
ton/ft2/ft ton/ft2/ft ton/ft2/ft
Range 50-100 100-200 >200
Proposed value 75 100 300
Range of Lateral Modulus of subgrade reaction k h
Soil MN/m2/m
Dense sandy gravel 220-400
Medium dense coarse sand 157-300
Medium sand 110-280
Fine sand 80-200
Stiff clay (wet) 60-220
Stiff clay (saturated) 30-110
Medium Clay (wet) 39-140
Medium clay (saturated) 10-80
Soft 2-40
Bowles, 1997
Empirical Correlations
Values of h (Terzaghi, 1955)

Type of sand Loose Medium Dense
ton/ft2/ft ton/ft2/ft ton/ft2/ft
Dry or moist 7 21 56
sand
Submerged sand 4 14 34
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
Pile supported by linear spring with constant kh with depth
Hetenyi Approach
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
Pile supported by linear spring with varying kh with depth
Reese and Matlock (1956, 1961)
Source of Table: Ranjan and Rao, 1991
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
If L>2.5, then the pile
is called long pile,
where L is the length of
the pile.
As per Hetenyi (1946),
a beam is called long
beam if L>3.14.
As per Vesic (1963), a
beam is called
moderately long beam
if L>2.25 and L<5. If
L>5, the beam is
called long beam.
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
Depth zi>….>z3>z2>z1
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
By similar way the displacement or rotation of the pile group at the ground line can
Elastic Analysis be determined due to horizontal load and /or moment considering interaction factor.
Displacement of Pile Group under lateral load by Interaction Factor Approach
Interaction Factor () for displacement =Additional displacement caused by the adjacent pile /
displacement of pile under its own loading
H is the unit displacement i.e the displacement of a single free-head pile under unit
horizontal load
Hj is the load on pile j
Hkj is the value of H (interaction factor for displacement under horizontal load) for two
piles k and j and angle  is the angle between the direction of loading and the line joining
the centers of piles k and j
Source of Figures:
Interaction factor (H) for free-head Interaction factor (H) for free-head
pile subjected to horizontal load , KR=10- pile subjected to horizontal load , KR=10-
5 3
Source of Figures:
pile subjected to horizontal load , KR=10- pile subjected to horizontal load , KR=10
1
Source of Figures:
Interaction factor (M and H) for free- Interaction factor (M and H) for free-

head pile subjected to moment and head pile subjected to moment and
horizontal load respectively, KR=10-5 horizontal load respectively, KR=10-3
Source of Figures:

horizontal load respectively, KR=10-1 horizontal load respectively, KR=10
Source of Figures:
Interaction factor (M) for free-head Interaction factor (M) for free-head
pile subjected to moment, KR=10-5 pile subjected to moment, KR=10-3
Source of Figures:
pile subjected to moment, KR=10-1 pile subjected to moment, KR=10
Source of Figures:
Interaction factor (F) for fixed Interaction factor (F) for fixed
head pile, KR=10-5 head pile, KR=10-3
Source of Figures:
head pile, KR=10-1 head pile, KR=10
Displacement and Rotation of Single Pile (Constant Es with depth)
Free-Head Pile
e is the eccentricity of load = M/H
M is the applied moment at ground line
H is the horizontal forced acting an eccentricity e above the ground line
IH is the elastic influence factor for displacement
F  is the yield displacement factor (ratio of pile displacement in elastic soil to
pile displacement in yielding soil)
F yield rotation factor
Fixed-Head Pile (Subjected to H only)
Constant Es
with depth
Influence factor (IM and IH) for free-head
Influence factor (IH) for free-head floating pile subjected to moment and
floating pile subjected to horizontal load horizontal load respectively
Constant Es with depth
Influence factor (IM) for free-head Yield-displacement factor (F) for free-
floating pile subjected to moment head floating pile
Influence factor (IF) for fixed-head

Yield-rotation factor (F) for free-head floating pile
floating pile Source of Figures: Poulos and Davis (1980)
Yield-displacement factor (FF) for fixed-head floating pile
Displacement and Rotation of Single Pile (Linearly varying Es with depth)
Source of Figures:
Poulos and Davis
(1980)
Linearly varying
Es with depth
Influence factor (I'M and I'H) for free-

Influence factor (I'H) for free-head head floating pile subjected to moment
floating pile subjected to horizontal load and horizontal load respectively
Linearly varying Es with
depth
Influence factor (I'M) for free-head Yield-displacement factor (F') for free-
Linearly varying Es
with depth
Influence factor (I'F) for fixed-head

floating pile
Yield-rotation factor (F') for free-head
Linearly varying Es with depth
Yield-displacement factor (F'F) for fixed-head floating pile
Determination of Hu value Source of Figures: Poulos and Davis (1980)
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
Source of Figures:
5 3
Source of Figures:
1
Source of Figures:

Source of Figures:

Source of Figures:
Source of Figures:
Source of Figures:
Source of Figures:
Free-Head Pile
Constant Es
with depth

Source of Figures:
Poulos and Davis
(1980)
Linearly varying
Es with depth

depth
Linearly varying Es
with depth

floating pile
Based on Elastic Analysis with Based on Subgrade Modulus
linearly varying Es with depth Approach with linearly varying kh
with depth
KOUSIK DEB

Module 12:
Source of Figures:
5 3
Source of Figures:
1
Source of Figures:

Source of Figures:

Source of Figures:
Source of Figures:
Source of Figures:
Source of Figures:
Free-Head Pile
Constant Es
with depth

Source of Figures:
Poulos and Davis
(1980)
Linearly varying
Es with depth

depth
Linearly varying Es
with depth

floating pile
Uplift Capacity of Pile or Anchor Pile or Anchor Plate
In clay Meyerhof and Adams, 1968
Pile with uniform diameter
Pu=cuAs+Wp
where cu is the average adhesion (ca) along the pile shaft
Wp is the weight of the pile, As= dL
Pile with enlarged base
Lower value of following
(i) Pu=cudbLk + W
where W is the weight of the pile and soil above the pile base
(ii) Pu=  (db2-d2)/4 cuNu + W
where Nu is the uplift coefficient can be take as N c for downward load
k = 1 – 1.25 for soft clay; k = 0.7 for medium clay; k = 0.5 for stiff clay
In c- soil
Pile with enlarged base
(a) Shallow Depth (L<db)
Pu=cudbL + s  /2dbL2Ku tan+W
(b) Great Depth (L>H)
Pu=cudbH + s/2db(2L-H)HKutan +W
where s is the shape factor = 1+mL/db with a maximum value of 1+mH/db
Ku is the earth pressure coefficient (0.9-0.95 for  value in between 25 – 40)
m is a coefficient depends on  value
H is the limiting height of failure surface
The upper limit of Pu
Pumax=  (db2-d2)/4 (cuNc + 'vbNq)+Asfs+W
where fs is the ultimate shear resistance, 'vb is the effective vertical stress at
pile base
 20 25 30 35 40 45 48
H/bd 2.5 3 4 5 7 9 11
m 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.5 0.6
smax 1.12 1.3 1.6 2.25 3.45 5.50 7.60
References (Books):
Selvadurai A. P. S., 1979, “Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction”,
Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam
Hetenyi, 1979, “Beams on Elastic Foundation” The University of Michigan
Press
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. 1980, “Pile Foundation Analysis and Design”
Rainbow-Bridge Book Co./ John Wiley & Sons
Bowles, J.E., 1997. “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Fifth ed. McGraw-Hill,
Singapore.
Murthy, V.N.S., 2001. “Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering’, Marcel Dekker, Inc. , New York.
Ranjan, G. , Rao, A. S. R., 1991. “Basics and Applied Soil Mechanics”, New
Age International.
Reese, L.C. and Van Impe, W. 2001, “Single Piles and Pile Groups under
Lateral Loading”, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam
References:
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S. 1994, “A Generalized Mechanical Model for
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Foundation Soil”, Geotextile and Geomembranes,
13(3), 813-825.
Ghosh, C. and Madhav, M.R. 1994, “Settlement Response of a Reinforced
Shallow Earth Bed”, Geotextile and Geomembranes, 13(9), 643-656.
Kondner, R.L. 1963, “Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohesive Soils”, J.
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division (ASCE), 89(1),115-
143.
Lecture Notes of Prof. Nagaratnam Sivakugan, James Cook University,
Townsville, Australia
Soil Structure Interaction
Prof. Kousik Deb
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology – Kharagpur
Lecture - 1
Introduction
Hello everyone today is the first class of this course, soil structure interaction. So before I
start the different parts of this course, let me introduce the content of this course.
(Refer Slide Time: 00:44)
In the week 1, I will explain the traditional or the conventional methods of shallow
foundation design. In week 2, I will discuss about general soil-structure interaction problems,
then the concept of subgrade modulus and then the parameters influencing subgrade modulus.
In week 3, I will discuss about different foundation models such as: one parameter model,
two parameter model, and then with linear and nonlinear stress-strain characteristics.
In week 4, I will continue the modeling part with linear and nonlinear stress-strain
characteristics. In week 5, I will discuss about the beams and plates on elastic foundation. In
week 6, I will discuss soil structure interaction for different types of foundation under various
loading conditions, and week 7, I will discuss the application of advanced numerical
techniques to analyze or solve different soil-structure interaction problems. Over here, I will
discuss the Finite Difference technique to solve these types of problems.
In week 8, I will discuss about the computer program based solution of different interaction
problems such as beams and plates. Basically, I will discuss about a part of week 7 in week 2
also. In week 9, I will discuss about different real life problems where we can use the soil
structure interaction models to solve or analyze those problems. I will try to explain at least
three problems where we can use these models that we will discuss in this course.
Then, we will go to pile foundation part. So up to week 9, it will be shallow foundation part,
then week 10, we will start the pile foundation part. So, basically in week 10, I will again
discuss about the conventional pile foundation, load carrying capacity, determination
techniques, negative skin friction, group action, and then week 11, I will discuss the
interaction among different piles in a group as well as the lateral loaded piles where we can
use our soil structure interaction concept to determine the deflection of laterally loaded pile
under different loading conditions.
Then in week 12, we will discuss about the uplift capacity of piles and anchors. So, these are
the tentative schedules that I am presenting here, but remember that I may continue, say
previous weeks’ topics in next week also or sometimes I can start one week topic in previous
weeks also. For example, I may continue with 10th week topic in week 11 also, and if
required, I may start week 11’s problems or topic in week 10. I will cover these topics in the
next 12 weeks and we will cover all this in a total of 60 classes.
Now, regarding the books- basically I will take the help of these books: Analytical and
Computer Methods in Foundation by Bowels, Numerical Methods in Geotechnical
Engineering by Desai and Christain, Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction by
Selvadurai, Beams on Elastic Foundation by Hetenyi, Pile Design and Construction Practice
by Woodward and Tomlinson and Pile Foundation Analysis and Design by Davis and Poulos.
I will give a number of references or I will use number of references during my classes. I will
give all those references at the end of this course, i.e., in the last class.
Now, let us discuss about the different types of foundation. Foundation is that part of a
structure which transfers the load from superstructure to the soil or sub soil. These
foundations are generally categorized in two groups: Shallow foundation and Deep
foundation. A Shallow foundation has its depth of foundation (Df) less than or equal to the
width of the foundation (B), i.e., Df ≤ B. If this condition is satisfied, it is called a shallow
foundation, and if the depth of foundation is greater than width of foundation, then it is
categorized as deep foundation.
Now, this deep foundation can be divided in 2 groups: deep, and moderately deep. If the
depth of foundation is greater than 15 times the width of foundation, then it is called a deep
foundation, and if it is equal to or less than 15, then it is called as moderately deep
foundation.
The first part I will discuss about the shallow foundation is the conventional design
methodology that we use to design one and then about the soil structure interaction part. Then
I will focus upon why we should use the soil structure foundation part in additional to the
conventional design. In shallow foundation, according to the conventional design, we will
discuss only about the dimension and how to determine it.
This includes the placement of our foundation and also the dimension of the foundation. So,
to determine the dimension and the depth of foundation, we will use different methods. We
will discuss about these in the first few classes.
Now, let us look into the different types of shallow foundation. A shallow foundation can be
a strip footing or a continuous footing. A strip footing has its length of foundation very much
larger than the width of foundation. This is generally provided below load bearing walls or
retaining walls. In short, strip footings are provided for a row of columns which are closely
spaced causing their footings to overlap each other. So, when the columns are so closely
spaced, that the required footing dimensions may result in overlapping each other, then the
footings can be combined and laid resulting in a foundation where length of the foundation is
much larger than the width of the foundation.
Next, we look at the spread footing or the isolated footing, which is provided to support an
individual column. It can be circular, square, or rectangular. This is the footing which is used
for a particular column. In the strip footing as I discussed, it can be a row of columns on a
particular footing, but here, one footing is for one column. So, it can be in a simple
rectangular, square or a circular shape.
The next type of footing is the combined footing. The combined footing supports more than
one column. So, we can combine two or three columns and then provide one particular
footing. If there seems to be a possibility that one footing may overlap to other footing when
a single footing is provided for one column, then we can go for a combined footing, but what
is the difference between the combined footing and the strip footing?
The strip footing supports a row of columns and the number of columns will be more. But in
a combined footing, it may not be a row of columns rather than a set of two three columns.
So, when these footings overlap, we go for the combined footing or sometimes some
structural restrictions may also lead to opt for the combined footings.
Next, we will go for the raft foundation. When we provide one particular foundation for the
entire structure, supporting a number of columns (usually more than 2-3) we can call it a raft
footing. In case of strip footing, it was only a row, but in a raft it is not one row, it is an entire
structure, which means it can be a number of rows. That is the difference between the strip
footing and the mat footing or the raft footing.
The choice of a particular type of foundation depends on the magnitude of loads, nature of
soil strata, nature of the substructure and specific requirements. As I mentioned for some
specific requirements also, we can go for the combined footing. Based upon all these 4
factors, the type of footing can be chosen like the strip footing or the isolated footing or
combined footing or raft footing for a particular foundation.
Design of foundation generally requires the knowledge of load that is coming onto it. So the
load from the superstructure should be known well before. Then the requirement of the local
building code should also be considered as the code of the particular location of designing the
foundation may have some additional factors or restrictions. So, the local criteria need to be
followed when designing a foundation along with the behavior of the soil or the properties of
soil and then the geological condition of that soil. So, the load from the superstructure, the
nature of the soil or properties of the soil and the code of the area where the foundation is
being designed are the crucial aspects to be considered while designing a foundation.
Now, when a foundation is being designed, two basic criteria of design should be satisfied:
the shear failure or bearing capacity criterion and the settlement criterion. That means, the
foundation should be designed such that it can carry the load coming from the superstructure
or in other words, the soil will not fail under that load. The next criterion is that that there
should not be excessive amount of settlement due to the load on the foundation.
So, there should not be any failure of the soil and there should not be any excessive
settlement of the foundation or the soil. In this settlement criterion, the codal provision is
very important. The foundation should be designed allowing only a certain amount of
settlement. The amount (magnitude) of settlement which will be allowed depends on the code
of that area. In essence, the code gives the instructions and this will be the permissible
settlement. That means, the foundation will not settle more than that permissible value. So,
this criterion should also be satisfied.
So basically, there should be no failure and no excessive settlement.
As mentioned earlier, when designing a foundation on a particular soil, the properties of that
soil should be known. To be aware of the properties of the soil or different soil layers position
or water table positions, is very important. So, before designing a foundation, we should have
the knowledge of that soil. To get the properties of that soil, we have to go for soil
exploration.
The primary objective of soil exploration is to determine the nature of the soil deposit, depth
and thickness of different layers. So it’s not just the thickness, but the depth, and the position
where a particular layer starts or ends. Then location of the groundwater table, engineering
properties of the soil or rock, location where the foundation will be laid and the in-situ
properties (by performing field tests) should also be known.
There are two options: to directly determine the properties of soil by performing field tests.
Another option is to collect the soil sample from the field and test it in the laboratory.
These tests have already been explained in my previous course, foundation engineering. You
can go through those lectures to get a detailed idea of how these tests are done. Here is a list
of tests that can be conducted to determine the field or in-situ soil properties and the type of
properties that can be determined from the tests.
The soil can be tested by digging up test pits. A soil sample can be collected by digging a test
pit up to the foundational level or by a boring. By boring, the soil sample can be collected,
transported to the lab and tested to get the soil properties. Different types of tests can be done
like, standard penetration test or SPT, which gives an N-value. The standard penetration test
is called an indirect test.
So, test pit is a direct method where directly the soil sample can be collected form the
foundation level and boring is a semi direct method, where the soil sample can be collected,
but not reaching out to the depth of collection. But in the pit, the soil sample is collected by
reaching up to the depth of collection. So, the test pit is applicable for very shallow depth and
boring can be applicable for greater depth.
In both boring and test pit, the soil sample can be collected but SPT, (standard penetration
test) is an indirect method. In this test, N value is obtained and based on the N value, the soil
properties can be obtained by making use of the available correlations. Another advantage of
SPT is that here the soil sample can also be collected in addition to getting the N value, which
is in turn used for design purpose or to determine the different soil properties.
The next one is the cone penetration test, CPT which is also an indirect method. It can be
dynamic cone penetration tests, DCPT or static cone penetration test, SCPT. The SCPT gives
the cone resistance qc which will be used in the design purpose as well as to determine the
soil properties. Other indirect tests are pressuremeter test PMT, dilatometer test DMT and
Vane Shear test VST. The Vane Shear test is used in the field only where the soil is very soft.
We can also go for geophysical exploration like: seismic reflection survey, seismic refraction
survey or seismic cross-hole survey. Soil properties can be obtained from geophysical
exploration also. As mentioned earlier, you can go through my previous lectures of
foundation engineering where you will get the detailed description of different test methods.
The last one is the plate load test which can be conducted in the field on the soil, where the
foundation is to be laid or at the foundational level. From this test, the soil properties are not
obtained, instead the bearing capacity and the settlement of the plate or bearing capacity and
the settlement of the foundation. So, that means the plate load test directly gives the values of
the bearing capacity or the settlement.
The plate load test will be explained in detail because this will be used later on to determine
the subgrade modulus which is the one of the major soil properties for soil structure
interaction.
As a summary of the discussion so far, there are different tests: SPT, Vane Shear test,
pressurementer test, CPT and dilatometer test. Out of these, for SPT, Vane Shear test and
PMT here, a borehole need to be excavated and for the cone penetration test and DMT, the
cone would be pushed into the soil and there is no need for a bore hole.
Till now we have discussed the different in-situ tests (field tests), but there are other options
where the soil sample can be obtained from field and tested it to get the soil properties. The
collected soil sample may be disturbed or undisturbed. Disturbed sample is that in which the
soil’s original structure gets disturbed during the collection of the sample and undisturbed
sample is that in which the soil’s original structure does not get disturbed during the
collection of the sample.
That means in the undisturbed condition, both soil sample and the field’s condition are same,
but in a disturbed soil sample, these two conditions are different. So, the disturbed soil
samples cannot be used for strength calculation, consolidation or the hydraulic conductivity
or permeability test. To understand the reason behind this restriction, we have to dig back to
the two basic design criteria of foundation: bearing capacity and settlement. The bearing
capacity is based on the strength properties of the soil, cohesion and fiction. So to determine
the cohesion or friction, undisturbed soil samples should be used. The other criterion,
settlement is a function of consolidation and the consolidation is also a function of
permeability. So, to calculate the settlement, the consolidation properties of the soil or the
permeability of the soil need to be known. So, these tests also have to be performed on the
undisturbed soil samples.
Although, disturbed soil samples can be used for some purposes like: determination of grain
size of the soil, determination of liquid limit, plastic limit, specific gravity of the soil and
organic content determination. These tests are done to classify the soil and disturbed soil
sample can be used for these tests.
For the shear strength parameter determination test, direct shear test, unconfined compression
test can be done. In the unconfined compression test, the unconfined compressive strength, qu
is obtained and the undrained cohesion value, cu can be calculated by dividing qu by 2. These
properties can be determined by tri-axial test also. The unconfined compression test is
generally done for cohesive soil and tri-axial test can be done for both cohesive and
cohesionless soils. The tri-axial test can be done in three ways.
Before starting the design part, it is required to know the different bearing capacity terms or
the shear failure or bearing capacity criteria. So, first we will discuss about the bearing
capacity criteria. You should be aware of the terminology used in the process of bearing
capacity calculation.
First of all, gross load is the sum of the weight of superstructure Qc, weight of the foundation
and weight of the soil. So, the gross pressure that acts on the base of the foundation is the
gross load divided by the area of foundation.
Out of the different terminology, the first one is the ultimate bearing capacity (qu). It is the
maximum intensity of gross load that a soil can support before failing. So, ultimate bearing
capacity is the maximum gross load that the soil can take before failing and the gross load is,
as mentioned, the load of foundation, it is the load of soil, it is the load of superstructure.
Net ultimate bearing capacity (qnu) is the maximum intensity of net loading at the base of
foundation that the soil can support before it fails. As the name itself indicates, net is nothing
but the gross load after subtracting the soil weight from it. The foundation is the additional
part along with the load from the superstructure. So, the net load will be the ultimate bearing
capacity minus the pressure due to the soil. The stress coming from the soil can be
determined as it would be:( γ  Df ). So, the net will be: ultimate bearing capacity minus
( γ  Df ). Then the net safe bearing capacity (qns) is the maximum net intensity of loading that
the soil can safely support without the risk of failure. That means, the net safe bearing
capacity is the net ultimate bearing capacity divided by factor of safety. In case of soil, a
factor of safety value of 2.5 to 3 is used. q ns  q nu FS

Next is the gross safe bearing capacity (qs). It can be defined as the net ultimate bearing
capacity divided by factor of safety plus gamma Df.
qnu
qs   D f
F
So, ultimately it will be you qu, (ultimate bearing capacity) minus (γ × Df) divided by factor
of safety plus (γ × Df).
qn  D f
qs   D f
F
The other design criterion of foundation is settlement. The terminology discussed so far is for
the bearing capacity criterion and in the settlement criterion, the safe bearing pressure will be
used. What is safe bearing pressure? The maximum net intensity of loading that can be
allowed on the soil without the settlement exceeding the permissible value is the safe bearing
pressure. Every design code has given its permissible value of settlement and the safe bearing
pressure depends on it. That means, it is the stress under which the settlement of the
foundation will not exceed that permissible value.
The safe bearing pressure is in terms of the settlement criterion and there are various bearing
pressure values in terms of the bearing capacity criterion. The minimum one of the two will
be the allowable bearing pressure. So the allowable bearing pressure is the amount of bearing
pressure that can be allowed on to the soil satisfying both the settlement and bearing capacity
criteria.
To put in proper definition, it is the maximum net intensity of loading that can be imposed on
soil with no possibility of shear failure, (satisfying the bearing capacity criterion) and the
possibility of excessive settlement ( satisfying the settlement criterion). That means, this is
the stress under which the settlement will be within the permissible limit as well as the soil
will not fail, or it is the smaller of net safe bearing capacity and safe bearing capacity.
These are the different aspects of the terminology that have been discussed. In the next class,
I will first discuss how to calculate the bearing capacity of the soil, then in the next classes,
we will discuss about the settlement criterion and then we will discuss how to design a
foundation on sand as well as the clay. Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 2
Bearing Capacity of Soil
Last class, I have discussed about various soil exploration techniques and the scope of
disturbed sample and undisturbed sample usage along with the different design criteria for a
shallow foundation. In this class, I will discuss about the bearing capacity and how to
determine the bearing capacity of soil. So as I discussed, there are different terminology for
the bearing capacity calculation listed: ultimate bearing capacity, the net ultimate bearing
capacity, gross safe bearing capacity, net safe bearing capacity. The net safe bearing capacity
is very important. Ultimately we will determine the net safe bearing capacity and then, then
the safe bearing pressure in terms of settlement criteria. So, the smaller value of net safe
bearing capacity and the safe bearing capacity in terms of settlement criteria will give the
allowable bearing pressure.
Now, we will discuss about the different modes of soil failure. When a load is applied on soil,
it may fail in different modes which depend upon the type of soil. There are 3 types of failure
modes as: general shear failure, local shear failure and punching shear failure. General shear
failure occurs in dense sand or stiff clay. A definite failure surface develops within the soil
that fails in general shear failure. There would be significant amount of bulging on both sides
of the foundation and the ultimate load can be easily determined. The load versus settlement
graph gives a definite peak.
That means, the load settlement curve initially increases and then decreases giving a
particular peak value. This peak value will give us the ultimate load of the foundation which
is easy to locate.
These are the different conditions to identify a soil as soft or medium or stiff as mentioned
earlier, the general shear failure is applicable for stiff clay or dense sand. The undrained
cohesion for a stiff soil would be between 50 and 100 kPa. If the undrained cohesion is within
0 to 12.5 kPa, then the soil is called very soft, 12.5 to 25 is for soft, 25 to 50 is for medium,
50 to 100 is for stiff, 100 to 200 is for very stiff and then if cu is greater than 200 it is called
hard.
Similar to consistency of different types of soil, there is a term called relative density which
is usually applicable in granular soils. Relative density is the term by which one can
understand the density status of the soil in the field. That means, for a soil in a very loose
condition, the relative density should be between 0 and 15. But, for a dense soil where the
general shear failure usually occurs, the relative density should be in between 65 and 85. The
relative density values for a very dense soil would be 85 to 100 and for medium soil, 35 to
65%. So, if the relative density of a soil is determined, we can predict the type of failure the
soil may undergo and for clay, this can be done by determining the consistency of it.
Local shear failure occurs in medium/relatively loose sand or medium/relatively soft clay. In
case of a local shear failure, well defined wedges and slip surfaces will only be found beneath
the foundation, and not on the sides of the foundation. Although, there would be a slight
bulge in the ground surface adjacent to the foundation, it is not as significant as compared to
the general shear failure. Besides, the load settlement curve does not indicate any ultimate
load clearly. That means there would be no definite peak of the load settlement curve, as the
curve increases initially and becomes almost parallel to the settlement axis. Another
characteristic of the local shear failure is that the soil directly beneath the foundation
undergoes significant compression.
Next in the failure modes is punching shear failure which occurs in very loose sand and very
soft clay. Here, there would be no definite failure surface even below the footing. The soil
zones beyond the loaded area will not be affected, which means there would be no bulging or
a very little effect would be noticed. Significant penetration of the wedge shaped soil zone
beneath the foundation can be expected which in turn results in significant penetration of the
foundation, but within the footing zone. So, the ultimate load cannot be clearly recognized in
the local shear failure.
These are the different failure modes that may occur in various types of soil.
Based on the observations discussed so far, the first bearing capacity theory was proposed by
Terzaghi which is very popular. This equation is generally used to determine the bearing
capacity of soil. When Terzaghi derived this bearing capacity theory, he assumed or he
derived this theory for strip footing or the continuous footing and it is assumed that the soil is
homogeneous which fails in general shear failure. Terzaghi’s bearing capacity was initially
developed for dense soil and stiff clay where the general shear failure will occur, so that there
will be a definite failure surface below and beyond the loaded region. The load is considered
perfectly vertical and acting at the center of the footing.
These are the conditions or assumption in Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory.
Terzaghi assumed 3 different zones: a triangular portion, zone-1 and a curved portion, zone-2
and again there would be a straight line portion, zone-3. The zone-1 is called the state of
static equilibrium. The zone-2 is the zone of radial shear and zone-3 is called the Rankine
passive zone. Here, the effect of soil on the bearing capacity is taken as a surcharge effect.
The different forces acting on the wedge and then finally these expressions are proposed.
There are 3 terms in this equation: the first term is cNc; the second term is γ Df Nq and the
1
third term is γ B N γ . Nc, Nq Nγ are the bearing capacity factors. The expressions for the
2
bearing capacity factors are given in the slide and as it is evident, they are a function of ϕ,
friction angle. The factor, ‘a’ is also a function of friction angle, ϕ. Note that this equation
was developed and is valid only for a strip footing.
As a summary of defining all the terms of the equation:-
Nc, Nq Nγ are the bearing capacity factors
c is the cohesion of the soil
γ is the unit weight of the soil
Df is the depth of foundation
B is the width of foundation
The first term in the bearing capacity equation considers the contribution due to cohesion.
The second term is γ × Df which is nothing but the surcharge of the soil above the foundation
level. The third term is the contribution due to the unit weight of the soil below the
foundation.
There are two unit weights (γ) in the equation which means that for a homogeneous soil, the
same γ can be used for both the terms. But ideally, the second term γ is the unit weight of the
soil above foundation level (from the ground level to the foundation level) and the third term
γ is the unit weight of the soil below the foundation level.
Terzaghi had also given in tabular form, the different bearing capacity factors (Nc, Nq Nγ).
Values are given for different ϕ values ranging from 0 to 50⁰ of soil. For a ϕ value of 0⁰
(purely cohesive soil), the Nc value is 5.7, Nq is 1 and Nγ is 0.
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity expression was initially applicable only in case of general shear
failure, but it can also be used for local shear failure condition by modifying the c and ϕ
values. This modification includes reducing the c value to two-thirds of the original value
 2 
 cm  c  . The mobilized angle of shearing resistance (ϕm) is given by:
 3 
2 
φm  tan 1  tan φ  So, instead of using ϕ and c, the mobilized values, cm and ϕm should be
3 
used. So, for the equation in case of local shear failure, the bearing capacity factors would be
chosen based on the new ϕ value. The ultimate bearing capacity in this case will be:
2   1    
cNc  γDf Nq  γBN γ . So, N c , N q and N γ means that it is for local shear failure and
3 2
the bearing capacity factors are determined based on ϕm but not ϕ.
The next question is that when to consider general shear failure and when, local shear failure.
There is a guideline given for this purpose. If soil has its friction angle, φ  36ο then the soil
is expected to fail by general shear failure, and if φ  29ο , local shear failure is likely to
occur. If the ϕ value lies in between 29ο and 36ο , a mixed type of failure may be
encountered. So, if φ  36ο , directly we can use the Nc, Nq, Nγ, the original Terzaghi’s
bearing capacity factors as well as equation. If φ  29ο , the ϕ and c values should be
modified.
2 
For example: if φ  29ο , convert it to φm which would be equal to: tan 1  tan 29ο  .
3 
 
Then based on that ϕm, determine the bearing capacity factors, which will be N c , N q and

N γ . If the P value lies between 29ο and 36ο , linear interpolation should be done to determine
the bearing capacity factors. In case of a c-ϕ soil, the mode of failure cannot be decided either
by the ϕ value or c value alone in which case, an analysis of the load settlement curve of the
soil would be required.
If the stress-strain curve or the load settlement curve does not show any peak and has a
continuously rising pattern up to a strain of 10 to 20%, then we will go for the local shear
failure. If the curve indicates failure of soil specimen at a relatively small strain, less than 5%,
then we will go for general shear failure.

Originally Terzaghi’s equation was applicable only for strip footing, but later on it has been
modified and now it can be used for square footing, circular footing or rectangular footing but
only with the application of certain correction factors. Two correction factors are introduced:
α1 and α2 where, α1 is applied for the first term (α1 × cNc) and α2 is applied for the third term.
Now, for a strip footing: α1 and α2 will be half because in the original expression, it is (1/2 × γ
B Nq). For a square footing, α1 and α2 will be 1.3 and 0.4 respectively. For a circular footing,
 B
α1 and α2 will be 1.3 and 0.3. For a rectangular footing, α1 will be 1 + 0.3  and α2 will be
 L
 B
0.5 1  0.2  [B is the width of the footing and L is the length of the footing]
 L
The next aspect to be considered is the water table effect because in Terzaghi’s original
equation, the water table effect was not introduced. But when a foundation is being designed,
the water table should be taken into consideration. Now how we will incorporate the water
table effect?
When bearing capacity is being worked out for a saturated clay (ϕ = 0), the Nγ would be zero
and Nq = 1. So, the third term in Terzaghi’s equation would be zero and qu would be equal to
(cNc + q). But the net ultimate bearing capacity is: qnu = qu – q (where, q = γ × Df). So, qnu
would be equal to cuNc. But if ϕ=0, Nc will be 5.7 which makes qnu = 5.7Nc.
So for a saturated clay (ϕ = 0), net ultimate, qnu will be 5.7cu.
The effect of submergence on soil is to reduce the undrained shearing strength, cu due to
softening effect. The shear strength parameters should be determined in the laboratory under
saturated condition. Remember that whenever soil is under submerged condition, its cohesion
or the strength will reduce. So when it is needed to determine the properties of clay or any
soil, it should be done under submerged condition or the saturated condition.
The effect of water table is actually introduced in Terzaghi’s equation by using the effective
surcharge in the calculations. This implies using a reduced surcharge as the effective weight
below the water table is equal to the submerged unit weight.
As we are using the effective stress of soil we should know of total stress and effective stress.
When a load is applied on soil, the soil skeleton takes some portion of the stress and the water
takes some portion of the stress. Due to this, pore pressure will be generated in the soil. The
effective stress is the stress taken by the soil skeleton only. That means, we can express
effective stress as: total stress minus pore water pressure.      u 
From the figure: Dw is the position of water table below the ground level;
Df is the depth of foundation and
B is the width of foundation.
The soil above the ground level is not in submerged condition, but the soil below the ground
level is submerged condition. Initially when there is no water, q = γ × Df. Now with the water
table, q will be (Dw×γ + a×γꞌ). Now what is γꞌ? γꞌ is basically the effective unit weight of soil.
At a point at a depth of ‘h’ from ground level with water table at the ground level, effective
stress will be: total stress, (γ × h) – (γwater × h).    h   wh
where, γ is the unit weight of soil (here, as the soil is in submerged condition, γ is
γsaturated or γsat) and γwater is the unit weight of water.
Now, effective stress,    (   w )h      h
γ  is the submerged unit weight of soil (may be referred to as γsub sometimes).
The same concept is used here, that here (Dw×γ + a×γꞌ). As the soil below water table will be
submerged condition, γꞌ is used here and ‘a’ is the height, so: (a× γꞌ). Although initially, both
were γ and this may be different γs according to the condition. It may be γbulk above the water
table or γsat, (saturated unit weight). γw is the unit weight of the water, generally taken as 10
kN/m3. Sometimes, you may find in some problems that γbulk will be equal to γsat and in some
cases, these two can be different. You can refer to any soil mechanics book for the detailed
derivation of this equation. Also, there would be detailed explanation about γbulk, γsat, γw and
γsub or γꞌ.
If γsat and γbulk are different, then two different values will be given for: unit weight of the soil
above water table and the saturated unit weight of the soil below water table. Finally, the
equation for q will be: (γ × Dw) + (a × γsub).
If I substitute a = (Df - Dw), the expression changes to: q  γDf  γ  γD w (Dw is the height
of the water table from the ground). Now, substitute the value of q in the bearing capacity
 
equation: qu  cu N c   D f     Dw N q   BN  .
1
2
Here, as the water table is above the footing base, the third term will be definitely γsub or γꞌ. If
the water table is at the ground level, the second term would also be γꞌ along with the third
term. As, here it is not at ground level, we have to modify it in this way.
The next case we will discuss is if a = 0, that means water table is at the base of the
foundation and Dw will be Df. Now the second term γ will be γbulk because there water table is
not present, but the third term γ will be γsub because third term γ represents the oil below the
footing base which is in totally submerged condition. So, third term will be γsub or γꞌ.
The next case is when the water table lies below the footing base. If the water table position
is below the footing level at a depth which is greater than or equal to the width of foundation
from the footing level, then the water table effect need not be considered. But, if the water
table is located within a distance B from the base of the foundation, then our expression will
1 
be: q u  c u Nc  γDf N q  γ  γ  γD w BN γ . The γ in second term would be γbulk or
b
2 B 
simply γ as the water table is not affecting the soil above the foundation.
 
So instead of using only γ, we should be using γ  γ  γDw  . Usually if only γ is given,
b
 B 
it means that it is the bulk density, γbulk and sometimes γꞌ may be written as γsub. In the last
equation, if b=B (b is the depth of water table from base of the footing), this equation turns to
the original bearing capacity equation indicating that the water table effect need not be
incorporated.
In the next class, I will discuss about another condition where load is inclined and not acting
at the center. In that case, how to determine the bearing capacity expression, bearing capacity
of the foundation will be discussed in the next class. Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 3
Bearing Capacity of Soil (Continued)
In the last class, I have discussed the Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation and how to
incorporate the water table effect. Now, I will start from that point and then will continue
with the other conditions.
If water table is at a depth, b from the base of the foundation, the expression will be:
1
qu  cu N c  γD f N q   γ  
b
γ  γDw  BN γ
2 B 
If the water table is at the footing base, the γ in the term would be γꞌ. Now, if the water table
is at a depth of B from the base of foundation, then no water table corrections are required
which means the original Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation.
The next bearing capacity equation I will discuss is the Skempton bearing capacity equation,
proposed by Skempton in 1951 which is applicable only for clay. Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
equation is applicable for c-ϕ soil, clay, sand and also the mixed c-ϕ soil, but this bearing
capacity equation is applicable for clay. Generally, I would recommend this equation to
design a foundation on clay.
As I mentioned, if this is applicable for only clays i.e., (ϕ = 0), then the net ultimate bearing
capacity will be cuNc. Skempton proposed that the value of Nc for a strip footing would be:
 D 
N c  5  1  0.2 f  ;where, Nc cannot be more than 7.5.
 B
For square and circular footing, the expression for Nc is:
 D 
N c  6  1  0.2 f  ;where, Nc cannot be more than 9.
 B 
Now for the rectangular footing, the Nc value we will be:
 D  B
N c  5  1  0.2 f 1  0.2  For Df/B ≤ 2.5
 B  L
 B
N c  7.51  0.2  For Df/B > 2.5
 L
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation is valid for shallow foundation only where Skempton’s
bearing capacity equation is valid for any value of Df/B.
The third bearing capacity theory in our discussion is the Meyerhof’s analysis okay. So,
Meyerhof’s analysis can be applied for. The Terzaghi’s bearing capacity was initially
applicable for strip footing but later on modified for circular, square and rectangular footing.
But if the loading is inclined or eccentric (not in the center), the Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
equation cannot be used.
The Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors: Nc, Nq, Nγ depends upon the roughness of the base,
depth of footing, shape of footing in addition to angle of shearing, ϕ. These are the additional
variables that are introduced in the Meyerhof’s analysis. The soil below the footing according
to this theory too, is divided in two 3 zones: first is the elastic zone, second is the zone of
radial shear and the third is the zone of mixed shear in which shear varies from radial shear to
plane shear.
Apart from this, there is one more basic difference between the failure surfaces proposed by
Terzaghi and Meyerhof. Terzaghi’s bearing failure surface reaches up to base of the footing
only, whereas Meyerhof’s failure surface reaches up to the ground surface.
The final expression proposed by Meyerhof is shown in the slide. The correction factors used
are: sc, dc, ic, sq, dq, iq, sγ, dγ, iγ. Here, s is the shape correction factor; d is the depth correction
factor; i is the inclination correction factor (if the footing is inclined). The expressions for
bearing capacity factors Nc, Nγ, Nq are also shown in the slide. For a strip footing, all the
shape factors will be one.
Meyerhof has given different factors and expressions to determine them for any value of ϕ.
Similarly, depth factor can also be calculated for different ϕ values.
Similarly the inclination factor expressions are also given where, α is the angle the load
makes with the vertical. With the help of these equations, we can determine these inclination
factors for different ϕ. The Kp used in these expressions is nothing but:
 φ
K p  tan 2  45  
 2
Meyerhof had also given a table for Nc, Nq, Nγ and as per this, if ϕ = 0, Nc will be 5.14
whereas, in case of Terzaghi it was 5.7.

Next in the Meyerhof’s bearing capacity theory is the eccentric loading. If a load does not act
upon the center of the footing, then the eccentricity it has along the width direction is taken as
ex and that along the length direction, ey. This can also be considered as a moment acting on
the footing. Also, if there is a moment, M acting upon the footing, it can be converted to
eccentric loading. By this, the eccentricity, ex or ey can be calculated as: M/P, where P is the
load.
So, eccentricity comes into the picture due to external moment, or sometimes, loading itself is
eccentric. The eccentricity can either be ex or ey depending upon the direction of the moment.
When the load is eccentric, the full width of the footing cannot be considered, as the effective
width or length which actually bears the load will be lesser than the original footing
dimensions. In that case, width should be considered as Bꞌ and not B (where, Bꞌ = B - 2ex).
Similarly for a rectangular footing, the dimensions will be Bꞌ and Lꞌ (where, Lꞌ = L - 2ey).
Finally, the effective area of the footing will reduce to Bꞌ × Lꞌ. So, in the event of eccentric
loading, if any, the corrected dimensions, Bꞌ and Lꞌ should be used to determine the
correction factors proposed by Meyerhof.
Then if the moment is known, ey can be calculated by dividing the moment with the load. The
value of eccentricity obtained by this can be referred to as eꞌ and depending upon the
direction of the moment, it can either be e x or ey.
Sometimes while solving numerical problems, it may be mentioned in the question that the P
or the vertical load is acting at a distance ex or ey from the center. It can be either ex or ey or
both. But it should be kept in mind that Bꞌ and Lꞌ should be used to calculate the bearing
capacity factors.
Even in the bearing capacity equation, Bꞌ should only be used for eccentric loading. So that is
also another important change okay. Another important aspect to be considered is that this
equation can only be used if: ex ≤ B/6 and ey ≤ L/6. This restriction can be marked in form of
a zone on the footing as shown in the slide and the bearing capacity equation is valid only if
the load acts within this zone. This condition needs to be checked when the values of e x and
ey are calculated.
The IS code, 6403-1981 is available which explains the process of determining bearing
capacity. This method, indeed is similar to the Meyerhof theory, but the only difference is
that here, net ultimate bearing capacity is given directly unlike that in the Meyerhof equation.
In the Meyerhof theory, if the net ultimate bearing capacity is to be determined, the ultimate
bearing capacity has to be calculated first and then q should be subtracted from that equation.
But in IS code, this term itself is given in that form (Nq - 1).
Here, the water table effect is incorporated here in the third term with Wꞌ, a factor for water
table which is equal to 1 when water table is at or below a depth of (Df + B) measured from
the ground level. Wꞌ will be 0.5 when water table is located at a depth Df or likely to rise to
the base of the footing or above. Wꞌ can also be linearly interpolated if it is located in
between Df and (Df + B).
So, if the water table is considered to be at the ground level, the bearing capacity roughly
reduces by 50%.
The bearing capacity factor, Nγ used in the IS code is originally proposed by Vesic, and the
other two factors: Nc, Nq are same as the Meyerhof bearing capacity factors.
IS code also gave the shape factors (Sc, Sq, Sγ) for rectangular, square and circular footings.
For different values of ϕ, values of different depth factors (dc, dq, dγ) can be calculated.
The inclination factors ic, iq, iγ are also given in terms of α where α is the angle the inclined
load makes with the vertical.
There are other bearing capacity equations available that are proposed by Vesic, Hanson,
Peck. These were detailed in my previous course, foundation engineering.
So far we discussed that if we know the shear strength parameters, c or ϕ or both depending
upon the type of soil, we can determine the load carrying capacity or bearing capacity of the
foundation.
Now, let us see how to calculate the bearing capacity if the SPT value is known. The
expression proposed by Teng in 1962 is frequently used to determine the net ultimate bearing
capacity by the equation:
qnu 
3

1 2

N BRw  3(100  N 2 ) D f Rw For square and circular footing
qnu 
1
6
 
3N 2 BRw  5(100  N 2 ) D f Rw For strip footing
Where, N is the corrected SPT value, Df is the depth of foundation, Rwꞌ and Rw are the two
correction factors for water table.
The above expression is empirical and hence the units should be remembered. (q nu in kN/m2)
The N values used in the expression should have been corrected for overburden pressure. Df
is the depth of footing in meter and if Df > B, take Df = B.
The two water table correction factors (Rw and Rwꞌ) depend upon two depth values D w and
Dw' defined as: Dw- depth of water table below ground surface, limited to Df and Dw'- depth
of water table measured from footing base limited to B. So, Dw varies from 0 to Df and Dwꞌ
from 0 to B. The values of Rw and Rwꞌ can be obtained by calculating D w/Df and Dw'/B
respectively using the graph shown in the slide above.
The equations mentioned so far can be easily applied for homogeneous soil. But if the soil is
layered, these equations cannot be directly used. In general, the weighted average of cohesion
and friction values will be calculated. c1 is the cohesion of the first layer, H1 is the thickness
of the first layer; c2 is the cohesion of the second layer and H2 is the thickness of the second
layer.
All the layers which are within the influence zone of the footing should be considered for this
weighted average for calculating both cohesion and friction angle.
Now, let us look into the factors influencing bearing capacity. If the footing rest in a soil for
which c = 0 (cohesionless soil), the first term in the bearing capacity equation, cNc will be 0.
So, the equation will be qNq +1/2 (γB Nγ). So, the factors affecting this equation would be: ϕ,
width of footing (B), unit weight of soil (γ), depth of footing (Df) [Since, q = γDf] and the
position of water table.
Next, for the case of cohesive soils (ϕ = 0), where the bearing capacity equation becomes:
(cuNc + q) as Nq = 1 and Nγ = 0 if ϕ = 0. So, the third term in the bearing capacity equation
vanishes and as Nq = 1, the second term will only be q. Henceforth, the q net ultimate (qnu)
will just be cuNc. From this equation of net ultimate bearing capacity, it can be concluded that
neither the width of footing or depth of footing have any effect on qnu. But, depth of footing
affects the ultimate bearing capacity. So, if ϕ = 0, Meyerhof had given the value of N c = 5.14
and 5.7 for footing with smooth base and rough base respectively.
In the next class, I will discuss about how to use these expressions to determine the bearing
capacity of foundation. Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 4
Bearing Capacity of Soil (Continued)
In the last class, I have discussed about the various bearing capacity equations. Today I will
solve two example problems to show how to determine the bearing capacity using those
equations.
In the first problem, a rectangular footing of size 3 meter × 6 meter is founded at a depth of 1
meter in a homogeneous sandy soil. The water table is at a great depth. The unit weight of soil
is 18 kilo Newton per meter cube. Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity when c = 0 and
φ = 40o. Till now, I have discussed four theories: Terzaghi bearing capacity expression,
Skempton bearing capacity expression, Meyerhof’s bearing capacity expression and the IS
method.
Out of these four, the second one i.e.., Skempton’s bearing capacity expression cannot be used
because it is applicable only for clayey soil. So, other three methods can be used here as they
are applicable for any type of soil. So, I will discuss how to determine the bearing capacity
based on those three methods. First using Terzaghi’s theory, the net ultimate bearing capacity
is ultimate bearing capacity minus γDf and as it is a rectangular footing, corrections have to be
applied.
In the bearing capacity equation the third term will be 0 because c = 0. So, there will be only
the Nq term and the Nγ term. The second term will have (Nq-1) because we are calculating net
bearing capacity. Now, from the table of Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation or the table
proposed by Terzaghi, the Nq value is 81.3 for φ = 40° and Nγ is 100.4 for φ = 40°. When φ is
greater than or equal to 36°, general shear failure should be considered.
As there is no local shear failure, no modifications are required and also, it is not in between
general shear and local shear, so no interpolation is also required. So, here the general shear
failure bearing capacity factor can be directly used. Now, if these values are substituted, the
answer will be 3885.12 kN/m2. This is according to Terzaghi’s theory.
Similarly bearing capacity can also be calculated using Meyerhof’s theory which also uses the
same equation along with the shape, depth and inclination factors in addition to the previous
one. The Nq term should be multiplied by sq, dq and iq generally, but here, as the load is not
inclined, iq will be 0. Similarly iγ is also equal to zero. Here also the first term will be zero
because c = 0. If loading is inclined, iq and iγ should also be considered but the shape factor
and depth factor should be considered because it is a rectangular footing and is at a depth from
ground level and there is a γDf. So, from the table we will get sq = sγ as the equation is same
for both. If I put φ, I will get 1.23. Similarly, the depth factors, dq and dγ will be 1.07. Now
from the Meyerhof bearing capacity factor table, I will get Nq is equal to 64.1, Nγ equal to 93.7
corresponding to a φ value of 40°.
So if I put there, I will get a bearing capacity, which is 4830.11 kN/m2 (slightly higher as
compared to Terzaghi’s bearing capacity expression).
Now I will use the IS code method. The IS code method this expression is given in this form
as I discussed and here also c is equal to 0, so the first term will be zero
qu = D f (N q − 1)s q d q +
1
BN  s d 
2
As done earlier, iq and iγ are not being considered as loading is perfectly vertical. The water
table factor, wꞌ is also not being considered because no water table effect is mentioned. So, that
means water table is far below the base of foundation, so water table effect is not considered,
in that case Wꞌ will be 1, which is why it is not considered.
Other factors can be read from the IS code table: sq = 1.10, sγ = 0.8 and dq = 1.07 = dγ (dq = dγ
for φ > 10°). As I mentioned earlier, Nq is same as the Meyerhof bearing factor, so Nq = 64.1,
but Nγ = 109.4 (different from Meyerhof theory), read from the table corresponding to a friction
angle value, φ = 40°.
Substituting all the values, the bearing capacity will be equal to 3865 kN/m2 which is similar
to the Terzaghi’s bearing capacity value. From the IS code method, Meyerhof’s theory and
Terzaghi’s theory, the values of bearing capacity respectively are: 3865, 4830 and 3885. In this
case, Meyerhof’s theory gave the maximum value and then Terzaghi’s theory, 3885 followed
by the IS code method, 3865. IS code is giving slightly lower value compared to the Terzaghi’s
bearing capacity expression.
So, IS code is giving the lowest value, but this is only for this particular condition. There is no
guarantee that this trend will follow for all the cases. If the c-φ values change, then this trend
may also change. Now, if you want to determine the net safe bearing capacity, then divide this
net ultimate bearing capacity by a factor of safety 2.5 or 3.
Now, let us see how to incorporate water table effect in the bearing capacity equation proposed
by Terzaghi. In this problem, the depth of foundation is given 1.5 meter. Dw is given 2.5 meter
(let this be first case). So, the water table position is such that, it is 1 meter (=b) below the
footing base which is at a depth of 1.5 meter (=Df) from ground surface. In this case, what
would be the bearing capacity as per Terzaghi’s theory? To understand the water table effect
properly, let us determine bearing capacity assuming water table at different locations in
different cases. Let the first case considered be such that 𝛾̄ will be equal to:
𝛾̄ = [𝛾 ′𝐷𝑓 + (𝛾 − 𝛾 ′)𝐷𝑤 ]𝑁𝑞
For the second case, let us consider a condition where Dw is 2.5 meter, Df is 1.5 meter. So, b =
1 meter, B = 3 meter. φ value is given as 40° and c value is 0. So, as per Terzaghi: Nc = 0, Nq
= 81.3 from the table and Nγ will be 100.4 for φ = 40°. Here we are considering only Terzaghi’s
equation.
If I consider another equation (theory), the above procedure should be followed, but the shape
factor, depth factor and bearing capacity factors will be different. So here we will get, our value
is this term, first we will calculate this term.
1 𝑏
𝑞𝑢 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 + 2 𝐵[𝛾 ′ + (𝛾 − 𝛾′)]𝑁𝛾
𝐵
𝑏
where, 𝛾̅ = [𝛾 ′ + 𝐵 (𝛾 − 𝛾′)]
The saturated unit weight, γsat = 20 kN/m3; unit weight of water, γw = 10 kN/m3 and the bulk
unit weight, γbulk or sometimes written simply as γ = 18 kN/m3. The difference between γsat and
γbulk is that γsat is the unit weight of the soil below water table and γbulk is the unit weight of the
soil above water table.
So, the submerged unit weight, γꞌ is equal to (γsat - γw). As, γsat is 20 - γw is 10, γꞌ will be 10
kN/m3. So, I can write:
1
𝛾̅ = [10 + (18 − 10)]
3
because b is 1, B is 3, γ or γbulk is 18 and γꞌ is 10. So, this value will be 12.67 kN/m3.
If I substitute these values, then qultimate will be:
1
𝑞𝑢 = 18 × 1.5 × 81.3 + 3 × 12.67 × 100.4
2
As γ = γbulk = 18 as this is above water table, Df is 1.5; 𝑁𝑞 is 81.3; B is 3; 𝛾̅ is 12.67; and 𝑁𝛾 is
100.4. Remember that the footing considered here is a strip footing.
Similarly, if the position of the water table changes, the unit weight or the surcharge value
should be modified accordingly and the load carrying capacity or bearing capacity of the
foundation should be determined. Also, if the foundation is rectangular, correction factors
should be applied to get the bearing capacity. So, this way you can determine the bearing
capacity by incorporating the water table effect okay.
The next concept that I will discuss is the settlement. Till now I have discussed about the
bearing capacity part, but this is not the total design. Instead, it is only half portion of the design
and the other half is the settlement criteria which should also be satisfied. So, now I will discuss
the settlement criteria and then finally, I will design the foundation satisfying both bearing
capacity as well as the settlement criteria.
Settlement can be in different forms. So, let us investigate the different types of settlement
found in a shallow foundation. Uniform settlement which means that the structure settles down
uniformly. The foundation / structure uniformly sinks from the original level and the
foundation level after settlement may be, say S units below the original position. So, S is the
settlement of the structure and it is uniform. The uniform settlement is often limited depending
upon in the type of foundation and soil stratum which is called the maximum settlement.
Then the next one is the differential settlement. Differential settlement occurs when a structure
has two foundations under two different columns and the settlement of these two foundations
are not same. This may happen because of the difference in load on these two columns or the
difference in soil properties below these two foundations. This means that there will not be
uniform settlement in the building. So, at one place there will be less settlement and at another
place there will be more settlement. So that is why there will be differential settlement in the
structure and that is called angular distortion also. δ is basically the differential settlement
because S1 is the settlement of one foundation, S2 is the settlement of another foundation and
δ is the difference of these two, which is the differential settlement.
Then the third type of settlement is tilt, which also happens because of the differential
settlement. If there is a difference in settlements between two sides of a structure i.e.,
differential settlement, it may lead to tilting of the entire structure. The difference between tilt
and differential settlement is that, in the later only one column or a small portion of the structure
only settles differently or in other words, the differential settlement is restricted to a small part
of a structure. But in tilt, the entire structure is settled in such a way that one particular corner
/ side settles more compared to the other corner / side throughout the structure, this differential
settlement is uniform. So, that means the total structure tilts because of the differential
settlement to one side.
These three cases should be checked during the design. But mainly the maximum settlement
will be checked. It should be kept in mind that these two, angular distortion or differential
settlement and tilt should also be checked for.
The settlement of a shallow foundation, i.e., the total or maximum settlement (St) can be
expressed as a summation of three types of settlement. So, St = Si + Sc + Ss where Si is the
immediate or the elastic settlement that will generally occur within a very small duration of
time. So, this takes place during the application of load.
In clay, the settlement is due to the change of shape of soil without a change in volume or water
content. So, Si is neglected in clay as it is very small compared to the long-term settlement.
But, if the soil is sand, the immediate settlement is significant, and it contributes to the major
portion of the settlement. The second one is Sc which is the primary consolidation settlement
which occurs due to consolidation.
For a clayey soil, major part of the settlement is due to consolidation and not due to immediate
settlement. Ss is the secondary compression settlement which occurs because of the volume
change occurring due to the rearrangement of the soil particles. First one is the immediate,
immediately which occurs immediately after the application of load, second one is due to the
consolidation, and third one is due to the rearranging of the soil particle due to the application
of the load or volume change. Now, the summation of all the three settlements will give the
total settlement.
From the graph, it is evident that the immediate settlement is not time dependent indicating it
happens within no time, most of the times during the construction only. The primary
consolidation and secondary consolidation are time dependent. Both time dependent and time
independent settlements are significant only in some types of soil which we will study in-detail.
For granular soil or sandy soil, immediate settlement is almost the entire settlement. For
inorganic clay, primary consolidation settlement is the major part of the settlement and for
organic clay, secondary compression is the major part of the settlement. This should be kept in
mind, so that during the calculation of total settlement, the insignificant part according to the
soil type can be neglected.
This is the consolidated chart of the settlement formulae which may aid in the process of
designing a footing. Here, only the steps for design or the summary is been provided. If the soil
is inorganic clay, though most of the settlement is the consolidation settlement, we can
calculate the immediate settlement. Immediate settlement for clay can be calculated using this
equation:
1 − 𝜇2
𝑆𝑖 = 𝑞𝐵 ( ) 𝐼𝑓
𝐸
where, q is the load intensity acting on the soil base, B is width of foundation, µ is the Poisson
ratio, E is the elastic modulus or modulus of elasticity of the soil, I is the influence factor.
I will discuss how I can use this equation to get the immediate settlement. Then the
consolidation settlement for the clay can be calculated by:
𝐶𝑐 𝑝0 + ∆𝑝
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
1 + 𝑒0 𝑝0
The above formula shows that the consolidation can be calculated as the summation of
settlement of different layers if the soil is layered.
The conditions and soil properties effect which equation should be used. The usage of this
𝑝0 be the
equation to determine the consolidation settlement will be discussed in-detail. Let ̅̅̅
effective overburden pressure and ∆𝑝 is the additional stress coming on that particular point
due to the application of external load, H is the thickness of each layer, Cc is the compression
index, and e0 is the initial void ratio of the soil.
The consolidation settlement can be determined by another expression:
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝑚𝑣 𝐻0 ∆𝑝
∆𝑝 is the additional stress acting on the soil at that point due to the application of external load
okay and 𝑚𝑣 is the coefficient of volume change.
The settlement of granular soil, which is mostly immediate can be determined by plate load
test as per IS 1888-1982 or the method based on SPT as per IS 8009-Part 1 – 1976. The method
based on static cone penetration test is a semi-empirical method and is similar to that of the
consolidation settlement for clay.
The equation for settlement according to the SCPT based method is:
𝐻 𝜎0 + ∆𝜎
̅̅̅
𝑆𝑐 = 2.3 log ( )
𝐶 𝜎0
̅̅̅
where H is the thickness of each layer, ̅̅̅
𝜎0 is the effective overburden pressure, ∆𝜎 is the
increase in pressure at that point due to the application of external load and C is a constant =
̅̅̅)
1.5 (qc/𝜎 ̅̅̅)
0 as per De Beer and Martens or = 1.9 (qc/𝜎 0 as per Meyerhof. C can be calculated
separately for different layers to calculate the settlement and summed up later.
In the design procedure, the calculation of immediate settlement and consolidation settlement
will be discussed along with the settlement calculation based on SPT and plate load test.
Remember that any field test is suitable for granular type of soil or sandy soil, but not for clayey
soil because any field test in site is a short term test. Whereas the clay properties are long term
because of the very less permeability of clay and it takes very long term for clay to settle clay.
So the long term behavior may not be captured during the short duration of the field test.
Another reason is that in the clay, obtaining undisturbed soil sample is very easy which is not
the case for granular type of soils. So, usually for a granular type of soil, the field test data will
be used mainly.
1 − 𝜇2
𝑆𝑖 = 𝑞𝐵 ( ) 𝐼𝑓
𝐸
This is the expression for immediate settlement. Here, q is the net foundation pressure, μ is the
Poisson’s ratio, E is the elastic modulus of soil, I f is the influence factor. I will discuss how we
can get the influence factor and then depending upon the type of foundation in immediate
settlement, we will apply two corrections. One is the depth correction because these
expressions are basically given for the footing on surface. If the foundation or footing is on the
surface, then depth correction is not required. Another correction is the rigidity correction
which is to be applied for rigid type of foundations because this expression is generally for the
flexible type of foundation. An isolated footing is usually treated as a flexible foundation and
a raft foundation, as a rigid type of foundation. As the raft foundation supports the entire
structure on it, it should be treated a rigid kind of foundation.
For a rigid foundation, lesser settlement is expected as compared to the flexible foundation. So,
a rigidity correction of 0.8 should be applied if foundation is rigid (generally raft).
The influence factor values depend upon the type of foundation or footing (circular, square,
rectangular), L by B ratio and also the position (center or corner) below which the factor is to
be determined. The influence factor is more at the center which is why it is safe to calculate
and design the footing for the value at the center.
To find the influence factor for a rigid foundation at the center, take the If value at the center
of flexible footing and multiply it with 0.8. If values for the rigid foundation is more or less
80% of the flexile foundation values. That is why during the rigid foundation design, we will
take the If value at the center of flexible foundation, then we will apply the rigidity correction
of 0.8.
In the next class, I will discuss how to determine the other types of settlement that is the
consolidation settlement and settlement as per plate load test and by SPT for granular soils,
through example problems. Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 5
Settlement of Shallow Foundation
In the last class, I have discussed about the bearing capacity of soil and I solved a problem to
show how to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of soil or foundation based on different
available theories. Then, I started to describe the settlement, the other criterion of foundation
design. Today, I will continue discussing the settlement of shallow foundation.
I have already discussed the settlement calculation. We are interested mainly in the settlement
of clay or cohesive soil and that of granular or non-cohesive soil or sand. For a normally
consolidated inorganic clay, most of the settlement will be immediate settlement and for a
clayey soil, most of the settlement would be consolidation settlement. The immediate
settlement we can determined by this expression:
and the consolidation settlement can either be determined by this expression:
or by this expression:
depending upon the parameters that are available.
For the clayey soil, though the consolidation settlement contributes to the majority of total
settlement, we still calculate the immediate settlement along with the consolidation
settlement. But for the granular soil only immediate settlement will be considered as the total
settlement which is usually determined by the settlement based on the field test. This can be
done by plate load test, SPT (standard penetration test value), SCPT (static cone penetration
test value) and also by some empirical expressions. I will discuss about the consolidation
settlement, immediate settlement, then plate load test and the method based on SPT.
I have already discussed about the immediate settlement or the elastic settlement. This
1 μ2 
equation can be used: Si  qB I f ; where, q is the net foundation pressure, μ is the
 E 
Poisson ratio, E is the elastic modulus of soil and If is the influence factor. To the value
obtained from this equation, it may be required to apply two corrections: depth correction,
and rigidity correction. Most of the times, depth correction is required because this
expression is developed for a surface footing which is very rare practically.
Generally shallow foundations or isolated footings are considered to be flexible type of

foundation and raft foundations as rigid type of foundations. So, for the raft foundation, the
rigidity correction should be applied. This value is generally taken as 0.8.
This is the table where the influence factor values can be obtained or read. To use the
expression of immediate settlement, we will be needing the μ Poisson’s ratio of the soil, E
elastic modulus of the soil, and If influence factor. From the table, it can be noted that the
influence factor depends upon the shape of the footing and L by B ratio where, L is the length
of the foundation and B is the width of the foundation.
From the table, the If value for flexible footing, rigid footing at the center and corner of
footing along with the average value can be read. When an If value is taken for a calculation,
it is always recommended to take the value corresponding to the center because it is more
compared to that of the corner. Besides, it is required to determine the maximum amount of
settlement so that the settlement value can be adjusted to be within the permissible limit.
For a circular footing, the If value is 0.86 for rigid foundation and 1 for flexible foundation.
Similarly for a square footing, it is 1.12 for the flexible at the center and 0.82 for the rigid
foundation. So, it can be inferred that the rigid foundation If value is almost 0.8 times (80%)
the If value of flexible foundation at the center.
So, for the design of a rigid foundation, firstly the If value at the center for a flexible
foundation will be taken and multiplied with a rigidity factor of 0.8. The rigidity factor
correction of 0.8 should be applied for consolidation settlement also.
In the above table, the μ value or the Poisson’s ratio for different types of soil was given.
Clay soil which is saturated will usually have a μ value of 0.4 to 0.5. So, generally we take
0.5 as the μ value for calculation incase of a saturated clay.
The elastic modulus of soils depending upon the over consolidation ratio can be correlated to
the undrained cohesion value (cu) which is shown in the above table. If no other values are
available/provided for E and if cu value alone is given, then depending upon the type of soil,
any value from the above range can be taken (preferably average of a range) to determine the
E value. These values are like guidelines from where E value can be read depending upon cu.
Similarly, E value can also be calculated from the SPT or CPT data with the help of the
above given correlations. N value is a result of SPT whereas qc is a result of CPT. Remember
that these are empirical expressions and so units are very important. Here the unit of E is
kN/m2.
This table gives the approximate range of E values depending upon the type of soil. Clay is
divided into five categories (very soft, soft, medium, hard, sandy) for which the E value
ranges from a minimum of 20 kg/cm2 to a maximum of 2500 kg/cm2. Similarly sand and
gravel are also divided into groups and approximate range of values have been given.
As discussed earlier, two corrections are to be applied for immediate settlement, depth
correction and rigidity correction. The rigidity correction will be 0.8 as the influence factor
values for rigid foundation are 80% that of for the flexible foundation. The above chart shows
how to calculate the depth correction factor. This is Fox’s correction chart for settlement that
can be used for rectangular or square footing with different depths. The chart helps to read
the depth correction factors on the X-axis. The values on Y-axis first increases from 0 to 1
and then decreases to 0 because the factor from 0 to 1 is D LB , and thereafter LB D .
Basically, the upper half of the Y-axis has the D LB values and the lower half, LB D .
The lower half is usually applied for pile or deep foundation settlement calculation and upper
half, for a shallow foundation settlement calculation. So, the same curve can be used for the
shallow foundation settlement calculation and deep foundation settlement calculation.
So, from the D, L and B values, the depth correction factor can be read which should be
multiplied with the calculated immediate settlement.
Another aspect of the total settlement of soils is the consolidation settlement. There are two
different expressions to calculate the consolidation settlement and depending upon the
available parameters, one of the two can be chosen:
Cc  p  p 
Sc  H log10  0 
1  e0  p0 
S c   mv H 0 p
Where, H is the thickness of the different soil layer; H0 is the thickness of different soil
layers; Δp is stress increment due to the applied external load; p 0 is the effective overburden
pressure; Cc is compression index, e0 is initial void ratio, and mv is the coefficient of volume
compressibility. As mentioned earlier, two corrections should be applied for immediate
settlement, rigidity correction and depth correction.
For consolidation settlement, along with the depth correction and rigidity corrections, a third
correction called pore water correction should also be applied. This is because according to
Terzaghi, the soil undergoes one dimensional consolidation which is not true. In the field,
consolidation usually occurs in all three dimensions (3-D consolidation). To cater for this
difference between the theory and practical conditions, pore water correction need to be
applied.
The values for the pore water correction factor depending upon the type of clay are given in
this slide. It varies from 1 to 1.2 for sensitive clay; 0.7 to 1.0 for normally consolidated clay;
0.5 to 0.7 for over consolidated clay and 0.3 to 0.5 for heavily over consolidated clay. Note
that only in case of a very sensitive clay, the correction factor is more than unity which is not
true for all other cases.
The terminology used here like normally consolidated clay, over consolidated clay, heavily
over consolidated clay can be found in any soil mechanics books which can be referred to
because these terms will be discussed frequently in this course.
Till now, only the settlement calculation for clay soil has been discussed which consists of
immediate settlement and consolidated settlement. Now, the immediate settlement of sandy
soil will be explained because immediate settlement is the total settlement for sandy soil. So,
first the plate load test will be detailed and then through an example problem, the concept of
settlement from SPT will be looked into.
The next concept is about settlement of foundation in granular soils based on the plate load
test. The plate load test is a short term test or for that matter, any field test is. So field tests are
not recommended for cohesive soils because their behaviour is long term. As the permeability
for clayey soils is very less, pore water pressure will dissipate after a long time and so the
settlement occurs after a long time. So, for clay it is neither recommended nor suitable.
In a plate load test, the plate used for testing should ideally be equal to the depth of the
foundation. If they both are not same, depth correction factor should be applied. The depth of
plate (from ground level) will either be equal to the depth of foundation or lesser. It is usually
not possible for the plate depth to be higher than that of foundation depth (from ground
level). Sometimes, it is even difficult to reach the level of foundation which is when the test
will be conducted above the foundation level. In that case, the depth correction factor should
be applied to the settlement.
For the plate load test, first the soil should be excavated up to a desired depth. It is
recommended that the width of this excavation should be five times the width of the plate.
This is the minimum width of the excavated portion. The test setup consists basically of a test
plate upon which plates with decreasing size should be stacked upon. The loading is applied
with the help of a reaction frame and the corresponding plate settlement is calculated. The
settlement is measured with the help of dial gauges and the load is measured with the help of
a pressure gauge or proving ring. It is recommended to use at least two or three dial gauges. If
three dial gauges are used, then the angle between the dial gauges will be 120o. If only two
dial gauges are being used, they should be at the two opposite corners of the plate. So quickly
I will discuss the procedure of the plate load test.
This is the typical photograph of a plate load test. The surcharge used is usually of sandbags
or concrete blocks upon which the reaction frame acts upon to convert it into load on to plate.
The test plate used is generally a rough mild steel plate of different sizes as 30 centimeter, 45
centimeter, 60 centimeter or 70 centimeter square or circular in shape. Remember that plate
size less than 30 centimeter should not be used because the data will not be reliable. It is also
observed that the behaviour of the plate does not change significantly if the plate size is more
than 75. So the plate size can be restricted to 75 centimeter.
The data obtained from a 75 centimeter plate would be most reliable and also there would be
no need to apply some corrections like shape factor. After excavating the soil, a 5 millimeter
fine sand layer is laid on the ground and on that the test plate is placed. Then smaller size
plates are stacked on it. The common practice is to use smaller test plates for dense or stiff
soils and larger size test plates for loose or soft soils. If larger test plates are used in case of
dense or stiff soils, the difference between the settlements corresponding to consecutive loads
would be too small. On the other hand, if smaller test plates are used in soft or loose soils, the
difference of settlements corresponding to consecutive loads would be too high.
The water is removed by pumping it out from the excavated portion and after that the load is
applied by gravity loading or reaction loading. Before applying the actual loading on the
plate, a seating load of 70 kg/cm2 is first applied and released after some time. This load is
applied to assure a perfect contact between the soil and the plate.
The safe load is estimated and one-fifth of it is applied first. The settlement is recorded at
time intervals of 1, 2.25, 4, 6.25, 9, 16 and 25 minutes and for every hour after that. This
process is repeated till the soil fails or 25 mm settlement occurs, whichever is earlier.
Remember that each load increment would be equal to one-fifth of the safe load and after
each load increment, settlement is recorded at the above mentioned time intervals. But, there
is still a clarification needed about when to stop recording settlement after a load increment.
For sandy soil, recording the settlement can be stopped (next load increment can be applied)
when the rate of settlement value is 0.02 mm/min. This is an indication that equilibrium
condition or stable condition is achieved. But for clayey soils, because of their long term
settlement behaviour, readings should be taken up to 24 hours after each load increment or
when the settlement is 70-80 % of the expected value.
Settlements are recorded through a minimum of two dial gauges or three. From this data,
ultimately a load versus settlement plot can be plotted.
The recorded values of settlement are taken on the Y-axis where the load or stress is taken on
the X-axis. It is from this plot, the failure load can be determined which will be diuscussed
later on. Different types of soil give raise to different plots which are shown in the slide
above, from which the failure load can be calculated. If a curve is almost parallel to the
settlement axis (curves B and D), then the distance from the Y-axis (ordinate) will be the
qultimate.
If a plot is in the shape of curve-A (ref. above slide), double tangent method should be used
to find out the ultimate load. In this method, the initial portion of the curve is to be extended
forward through a tangent and the final porion of the curve is to be extended backwards
through another tangent. The stress corresponding to their intersection point will give the qu,
ultimate load. If there’s a definite peak value like that of curve-C, the stress corresponding to
the peak in the curve will be considered as the failure load. Sometimes, based on the
settlement criterion the allowable load or stress will be decided.
Once the load versus settlement curve is plotted, the above expression can be used to
determine the settlement in granular soils. The above expression is an empirical expression
where Sf is the settlement of foundation, Sp is the settlement of plate, Bf is the width of
foundation and Bp is the width of plate. Remember that Bf and Bp should be in centimeter
because it is an empirical expression.
Some of the important considerations in the plate load test are that, the smallest plate size
should be 30 centimeter. Sometimes capillary action in sand will increase the effective stress
or stiffness which may result in underestimating the actual settlement. Though this type of
test is more suitable for granular soil, it is used to determine the settlement in clayey soil also
using the expression in the above slide. Bp and Bf being the settlement of plate and
foundation respectively.
The ultimate bearing capacity for a foundation can also be determined from the plate load test
once the ultimate bearing capacity for the plate is determined. The expressions for this in both
cohesive and cohesionless soils are given in the above slide. For a cohesionless soil, the
bearing capacity is a function of width, but for cohesive soil, it is not the case. In the
expression for bearing capacity: cNc + γDf Nq + γB Nγ here the middle term would be zero
because the soil above the plate during the test would be removed making it independent of
the foundation depth. Incase of a purely cohesive soil, the Nγ term would be zero resulting in
a zero third term which is why for pure cohesive soil, the ultimate bearing capapcity is
independent of both depth and width of foundation.
So for a pure clay, the bearing capacity from the plate load test can directly be used for any
foundation, provided the soil is homogeneous. If the soil is layered, because of the lesser
plate dimension, the influence zone may not intercept all the layers resulting in erroneous
result.
Till now, the determination of ultimate bearing capapcity and safe load carrying capacity in
terms of bearing criterion has been detailed. Usually the term, safe bearing capacity refers to
the settlement criterion. The lower value of the two criteria will give the allowable load
carrying capacity. If there is a permissible settlement for foundation for a width Bf, it should
be converted in terms of the permissible settlement of plate.
In the settlement expression (given) for granular soil, the Sf should be substituted with the
permissible settlement value of the foundation to calculate the permissible settlement for the
plate. Now, the stress corresponding to that permissible settlement will give the safe bearing
capacity.
So, in the next class, I will discuss a few example problems and show how to calculate the
settlement or how to design the foundation for granular soils as well as the cohesive soils.
Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 6
Design of Shallow Foundation
In the last class, I have discussed about the settlement calculation procedures and I have dis-
cussed the plate load test and then immediate settlement for clay and consolidation settlement
for the clay, and then today, I will discuss about the design of shallow foundation on sand and
as well as on clay.
!
So, in last class, I have discussed about the plate load test and I have discussed about how to
calculate the safe load carrying capacity of the foundation based on plate load test data, then
how to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the plate and from that plate to the founda-
tion. I have given some correlations for clay soil to determine the settlement of foundation
based on the settlement of the plate and for the clay soil also, and similarly, if I know the ul-
timate bearing capacity of plate, then by using correlations, we can get the ultimate bearing
capacity of the foundation.
Then we will get the load carrying capacity of the foundation based on bearing criteria. We
will get the ultimate load carrying capacity, then we divide it with factor of safety, we will get
the safe load carrying capacity from the bearing capacity criteria, then we will get the safe
load carrying capacity of the foundation from settlement criteria based on the permissible set-
tlement okay. Then the lower of these two will give you the allowable load carrying capacity
of the foundation, but one thing is that in the plate load test, I have not discussed the water
table effect okay.
So, now if your water table is within the influence zone or even if it is at the base of the
foundation, so then also you have to take the water table effect. So, these are the water table
effect. So, in the bearing capacity calculation also, we introduce the water table effect and
remember that in bearing capacity calculation, our bearing capacity decreases due to the
presence of water, and as I mentioned if the water table is at the foundation or as the ground
level, then the building capacity will roughly reduce by 50% as compared to the bearing ca-
pacity without considering any water table effect.
So, remember that means the water table correction is generally less than 1. So, it varies gen-
erally in between 0 to 1 okay. So, it is less than 1, water table correction should not be greater
than 1. So, that means in case of bearing capacity, you have to multiply water table correc-
tion, but in case of settlement here, that means if bearing capacity decreases due to the pres-
ence of water, so that means that water has a negative effect on the bearing capacity and defi-
nitely it will have a negative effect on the settlement.
So, here this bearing capacity factor correction factor, we have to divide to get the actual set-
tlement after correction. So, that means here if I multiply, the settlement will reduce, but that
is not the case, bearing capacity will reduce but the settlement has to be increased because of
the water tablet effect because water table will give you a negative effect. So, that is why in
case of settlement when you apply the water table correction, remember that you have to di-
vide it by the measured or the computed water settlement okay.
So then only, your actual settlement after correction will increase. Suppose for example, if
your bearing capacity say 200 kN/m2, and if you apply water table correction 0.5, then bear-
ing capacity will come down to 100 kN/m2 and if your measured settlement is 20 millimetre
and if you apply the water table correction, then it has to be 40 millimetre, not 10 millimetre
because remember that if you apply the water table correction, your bearing capacity will de-
crease, but settlement will increase.
So, that is why this is the actual settlement after correction. This is the after correction. So,
the settlement computed from the plate load test divided by the settlement factor. Now set-
tlement factor you can calculate either using Peck, Hanson and Thornburn equation or either
using IS code method IS 8009 method. So, but as I mentioned, it should not be greater than 1.
So, this Dw and Dw’, if this is your foundation or the base of the plate and this is your
ground level, then your Dw is measured from here, this is Dw.
So, Dw is the depth of water table below the ground level. So, Dw is calculated from the
ground level and it is restricted upto this is B, this is Df by B and B is the width of the foun-
dation okay. On the other hand, your Dw’ dash is measured from the base of the foundation.
This is ground level, so this is measured from the base of the foundation. Again, the range of
this Dw dash is also up to the B.
So as per IS method if your water table as the base or above, then the correction factor is 0.5,
and if it is below the base of the foundation, then it is greater than 0.5, but less than 1 or with-
in 1 or if it is at the base, then it will be 1, but as per this method if your water table is at the
depth of the foundation, then it is not equal to 0.5. This is 0.5 if the water table is at the
ground level, then only this value is 0.5. So, you can use either this one or this one depending
upon which type of code you are following okay. So, this is the water table correction okay.
!
Then one thing I want to give you that now I have discussed that how to calculate the bearing
capacity of the foundation or soil shallow foundation and then how to calculate the settlement
of a foundation okay. So, because as I mentioned these are the two criteria for the design,
now when I discuss the bearing capacity of soil, then I have discussed how to calculate the
net ultimate bearing capacity of soil or foundation based on a SPT value. Now, here also I am
giving another correlation by which you can directly calculate the allowable bearing capacity
of the shallow foundation based on SPT.
So, the previous expression will allow you to determine the net ultimate bearing capacity in
terms of bearing failure okay, but here it is allowable, that means the minimum of bearing
and settlement. So, that means when these expressions have taken care both bearing criteria
as well as the settlement criteria. So, if you have the N value and if you have the permissible
settlement by using these two equations or the expressions, one is for the shallow isolated
foundation and this is for the raft foundation you can determine.
So, this is the expression in terms of ton per meter square, you can convert it to kN/m2. So,
this Sa is the permissible settlement, you put the permissible settlement value, N value which
is N value or corrected N value and this is the water table position and Dw, I have already
discussed just now, what is Dw and that is the depth of what table below ground surface okay,
Dw is the ground surface, Df is a depth of foundation and B is width of foundation. So, we
calculate the water table correction.
This is the water table correction depending upon the position of water table and then you put
them here, you will get the net allowable bearing capacity of foundation in terms of t/m2 for
isolated foundation. Similarly, for raft foundation you can use this expression, but remember
that this is the limit, this should be greater than 5 N value and less than 50 okay, you can use
this expression.
So, these are empirical expressions, so unit is very important. So, if you are using this ex-
pression, the unit has to be t/m2, so then you can convert it to kN/m2.
!
So, as I have discussed that when you are designing a new foundation, so, now we should
know what are the permissible criteria to design a foundation. So, I am discussing only the IS
code recommendations because now I will design a foundation on clay as well as the sand.
So, now here these are the IS 1904-1978 is given the permissible value of settlement for the
design of shallow foundation. So, these are the 3 things; the maximum settlement, differential
settlement, and angular distortions.
So, one is for sand and hard clay, another is for plastic clay. For isolated footing if it is a steel
structure, then this is the maximum permissible settlement value. If it is the RCC structure,
then this is the maximum permissible value. For raft foundation, this is the permissible and
this is the raft foundation for RCC structure. So, the isolated footing on sand or hard clay it is
50 millimetres and isolated footing on sorry raft foundation on sand and hard clay 75 mil-
limetres. By isolated footing on plastic clay, then this value is RCC 75 millimetres and for the
raft it is 100 millimetres.
So, that means, this is the maximum one. That means the raft foundation on plastic clay is
100 millimetre maximum permissible I can go and this is the lowest for isolated footing on
sand or isolated footing on clay, but RCC structure is 50 millimetres, but these are the other
criteria also that you have to follow, but generally, the design problem that I will solve, I will
check only the maximum settlement. We assume that the soil foundation or the building will
be deformed uniformly, but there may be some possibility that one column is taking more
load compared to the other column.
Then you check the settlement for individual column and then determine the differential set-
tlement. If differential settlement is not within this limit, then you redesign your foundation,
because here I am not designing a total building, I am designing a particular one column or
one foundation, and if I am designing the raft, then also I will concentrate only the maximum
settlement. We are assuming that other two settlements are within permissible limit, but if
they are not within permissible limit, then also you have to redesign the foundation.
So, that means, you have to check individually all the column settlement, then check the dif-
ferential settlement or the angular distortion is within permissible limit or not. Here, I will
discuss only the maximum settlement and assuming that all the other two criteria are satisfied
okay.
!
So, first example problem for the design part. So, determine the net allowable bearing pres-
sure or pressure of a square footing of size 3 meter cross 3 meter resting on sand with follow-
ing properties. The water table is located at a depth of 2.5 meter from the ground surface.
Depth of foundation is 1.5 meter. The permissible settlement is 50 mm okay. The permissible
settlement is 50 mm because as I have discussed that for the isolated footing, this is isolated
footing on sand and we are assuming it is the RCC structure.
Then your permissible settlement will be 50 mm and the factor of safety against bearing is
2.5. So we will check both in terms of bearing, in terms of settlement also okay, and then we
will provide what will be the safe bearing capacity or the allowable bearing capacity of the
foundation okay. So here the size of the foundation is given and we are calculating the SBC
safe bearing capacity, but it can be reverse also okay. That means you have the SBC, then
what would be the dimension of the foundation, but remember that that your SBC is also
function of the dimension of the foundation.
Because if it is a granular soil, definitely your bearing capacity is the function of your dimen-
sion of the foundation. So, that means generally either we have the soil property, and based
on that we determine the dimension or we have the dimensions, based on that we determine
the safe bearing capacity. So, here the dimension is given or and then what would be the safe
bearing capacity that we will calculate. So, first suppose if we calculate the foundation.
So this is I am using say different colour, so this is the foundation okay and this is ground
level and your depth of foundation is given 1.5 meter. So, this is 1.5 meter, depth of founda-
tion Df or D is equal to 1.5 meter. Now, width of foundation, it is a square footing is 3 meter
okay and water table location is 2.5 meter. So, suppose this is the water table location which
is 2.5 meter below the ground. So, this is the problem and these are the corrected N value. So,
as I mentioned for granular soil, we will use the field test data, and for the cohesive soil we
will use the lab test data.
So, here we are designing the foundation on sand, that is why we are using the N value or the
field test data also, but if you have the phi value also, friction value or the other parameters,
then also you can use the available bearing capacity expressions to determine the bearing ca-
pacity of the shallow foundation on sand, but here we have these data available that is why
we use this data for the design. So the N value is given at different depth, so minus 1 means it
is at the downward direction, minus 1.5 meter is 16, 3 meter is 20, 6 meter is 32, up to 9 me-
ter it is 40.
Remember that that the influence zone, what would be the influence zone, up to which depth
we will consider the N value for a design. So, remember that generally for the bearing capaci-
ty calculation or ultimate bearing capacity calculation, the influence zone for the bearing is
equal to B okay and for the settlement the influence zone is equal to 2B okay. So when you
calculate the ultimate bearing capacity are safe bearing capacity, the influence zone is B, B
means the width of the foundation and for the settlement calculation, influence zone is twice
B, generally varies from 1.5 to 2.
So, I recommend you to consider the 2B. So, remember that these are the very important in-
formation that for the bearing capacity calculation, your influence zone, that means the zone
up to which your foundation load will influence the soil is B and for the settlement calcula-
tion it is twice B. So, first we will calculate in terms of bearing. So, for the bearing it is B, so
that the first your influence zone is 3 meter from the base of the foundation. So, our base of
the foundation is here okay, 1.5 meter and the influence zone is 1.5 meter.
So influence zone will be 1.5 meter plus B. So, that is equal to 1.5 meter plus 3, so that is
equal to 4.5 meter okay. So it will go up to here, so 4.5 meter means up to here okay. So this
is point 0.5 to 4.5. Remember that the B is not from the ground level, it is from the base of
the foundation. So, I will take the average N value, so average N value N average, what will
= (16 + 22 + 20 + 27 + 29)
be the average N value? So, average N value will be ! , so there is
5
5 N values which I am taking, so average this is of 5.
So this value is 22.8 or roughly 23. So N corrected value for the bearing capacity calculation
that is 23 because it is up to the B. Now the bearing consideration, so I have given you the
Teng expression okay 1962. So that Teng expression I have given I can show you that expres-
sion again okay.
!
So, I can show you this is the Teng expression that I have given. So, remember that this is the
expression that was given and then this is for the square and circular footing, this is for strip
footing. So, but our case it is a square footing, so we will use this expression, the second one
okay. So, here I will get the net ultimate bearing capacity. So, that means, first we write these
two expressions, then we will go for the next part.
!
So, this is the bearing capacity expression that I am giving that for
1 2 /
q! nu = (N BRw + 3(100 + N 2 )Df Rw ). Now here N average is 23. Now, we have to calcu-
3
late the R/w and Rw. Now how we will calculate these two things?
!
So we will get these two things from this curve. So, what is your Rw part. This is the founda-
tion. So your Dw is the depth of water table below the ground surface limited to depth equal
to Df okay. So here it is written that your Dw is here equal to B because water table is here
okay, so that is 2.5 meter, so your Dw is limited to Df okay. So, this is Df and D/w, D/w dash
is this one and here it is 1.5 meter and this is 2 meter. So, your D/w dash is equal to 2.5 minus
1.5.
So, that is equal to 1 meter. So, D/w is 1 meter and Dw is equal to Df let us consider because
it is below the base of the foundation. So, form these expression that Dw by Df is equal to 1
here and D/w by B is equal to here it is 1 meter plus B is 3 meter. So, this value is one-third
means say 0.33, okay. Now if corresponding your; this value is 1. So that means if Dw by Df
is 1, so that means the correction factor is Rw, will be 1 because this is 1, this will be also be
1, but if your Dw dash B is 0.33 which will be, this is 0.3, it will be around here okay.
This is 0.33. So, if I so get this value is from the curve, from the point so this is more or less
here. So, this is 0.33. So this value is coming out 0.65 from the chart. So your Rw dash will
be 0.65. So I am getting Rw is 1 and Rw dash is 0.65 for this case okay. Now, I am going
back to the bearing capacity equation, the Teng equation okay. So this Teng question is
1
given., I am putting those values quickly. q! nu = (232 × 3 × 0.65 + 3(100 + 232 )1.5 × 1)
3
So, I will get our net ultimate is 1287.4 kilo newton per meter square. So, this is the net ulti-
mate. So q net safe is equal to, you have to divide it by factor of safety that is given here 2.5.
So, 2.5 is the factor of safety, this is 515 kilo newton per meter square okay. So in terms of
bearing capacity criteria or bearing consideration, your net safe bearing capacity is 515 kilo
newton per meter square okay.
So, in the next class, I will discuss that how I will consider the settlement criteria also and
then I will consider the allowable bearing capacity criteria and we will determine the safe
load carrying capacity or allowable load carrying capacity of the soil or SBC. Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 7
Design of Shallow Foundation (Continued)
So last class, I have discussed how to determine the safe bearing capacity or allowable load
carrying capacity of foundations isolated footing in sand. So, I determined the net safe bear-
ing capacity based on the bearing criteria and I will continue from there.
!
So, the same equation or same problem I am taking. So here from the bearing consideration,
you can see your value was, q net safe was 515 kilonewton per meter square. Now we will
consider the settlement consideration and then I will go for the allowable bearing capacity
consideration. So when we are talking about the settlement consideration, then our influence
zone will be 2B. So the influence zone will be 2B, 2 into your B is equal to 3, that means 6
meter okay. So now the influence zone will be from the base of the foundation it is 7.5 meter
okay.
So, the influence zone will be 7.5 meters. So 4.5 meter from base of the foundation was for
the bearing and for the settlement it is 7.5. So now the N average value will be that is
(16 + 22 + 20 + 27 + 29 + 30 + 32 + 32 + 33)
!= = 27 So average N value is 27. So now
9
these average N value we will use for settlement consideration okay. So let us go for the set-
tlement consideration.
!
So, this I have already used. So now settlement consideration, I will use the method based on
SPT because we have SPT data available, and plate load test settlement I have already dis-
cussed, so you can use that value also if plate load data is available. If SCPT data is available,
you can use for SCPT data also, but here SPT is available, so I will use these based on SPT.
So, from your N average value is 27. Now for the chart, your N value is 27, you can go, this
is the N value, this N value is 20.
This N value is 30, this is 25, so 27 will be somehow here okay and your B value width of the
foundation is 3 meters. So, this is the twenty seven 27, curve will be around this okay. So,
from the 3, this is your value, so corresponding value is this one. This is the blue one is the N
value 27, chart curve okay. So this is the 10 to the power 2, so kg per centimetre square. What
is written in the y axis? The settlement in meter per unit pressure in kg per centimetre square.
So that means, it is given that this is 10 to the power minus 2 meter okay is your settlement, it
is per kg per centimetres square okay. So if your load is 1 kg per centimetre square, then your
settlement is 10 to the power minus 2 meter. So I can write that our settlement value is 0.01
meter that is equal to 10 meters okay. So I can write that here for the 10 meters settlement is
we will get for 1 kN/cm2 okay. So that means here I can write that 1 kN/cm2 is equal to 100
kN/m2
So, 1 kN/cm2 just I have converted the unit only, 1 kN/cm2 is 100 k kN/m2 okay and here the
settlement is 10 millimetres sorry, settlement is 10 millimetre, here we have not considered
the water table effect. So, we have to consider the water table effect and then I will get the
actual settlement okay. So, because in previous case also when I considered the bearing con-
sideration, we considered the water table. Here, we have not considered the water table.
So now we have to consider the water table. Now, if we consider the water table, then here
what would be the water table correction factor because now my water table is here okay. So,
water table is here, your d by B, this is the small d, that small d value is 1 meter okay. So,
again the d, small d by B is 0.33. So, this is 0.33, will be somewhere here. So the same cor-
rection table I am using here. So the W dash will be 0.65, the same correction factor that I
have used for the bearding consideration, but here, as I mentioned, for the bearing I multiply
that, but here I have to divide it.
So my actual settlement will be after correction is equal to 10 divided by 0.65. So that value
is equal to 15.4 okay. So, actual settlement is coming out to be 15.4 millimetre, and as I men-
tioned in the problem, it is giving the permissible settlement is your main value was equal to
50 millimetre. So, it is like that that for 15.4 millimetre settlement you will get corresponding
to 100 kN/m2, then 50 millimetre settlement, you will get corresponding to which stress okay
and that stress value will be your permissible stress or safe bearing capacity okay.
So, that means I can write now my q safe or net or net safe in terms of settlement criteria will
be equal to, that means your 15.4 millimetre corresponding to 100, then 50 millimeter will be
100 × 50
corresponding to what okay. So that means it will be = ! . So, that will be equal to
15.4
324.7 kN/m2, clear. So, in terms of settlement consideration, it is 3247 kN/m2 square. In
terms of bearing consideration, it was 515 kN/m2. Now, I will use one more equation or one
more method and then check which one is giving the lowest value.
!
So, one more method that I will use is the method which is given by Peck, Hanson and
Thornburm. So here also I will get the allowable bearing capacity considering both, settle-
ment as well as the bearing. So, let us see. So again as we are considering settlement here,
permissible settlement, so our N average value we will get 27 okay and then here permissible
settlement means Sa is 50 millimetre okay. Now equation that we are using, so we put here
q(a-net) and this is for isolated foundation.
Now your settlement factor is 0.5 + 0.5 and your Df, Df now that is the depth water table be-
low ground surface, so depth of water table below ground surface is 2.5 meter. Then Df depth
of foundation is 1.5 and with the foundation is 3. So this value is 0.78. Here, a different cor-
rection factor is coming because we are using a different methodology or different equation.
So, now we are putting these values here, 0.044, Cw is 0.78, then N value is 27, and permissi-
ble settlement is 50.
So, this value is 46.332 ton per meter square, in terms of kN/m2, it will be 463.32 kN/m2
okay. So, now we have 3 values okay. Now, I am writing those 3 values. In summary, I am
writing those 3 values. So directly for the bearing consideration net safe is equal to 515 kN/
m2 for this is bearing consideration. Now q(a-net) is equal to 324.7 kN/m2 settlement considera-
tion and then q allowable net that we are getting here 463.32 kN/m2 okay, so considering
both.
So, as I mentioned that ideally, lower of these two will give you the allowable load bearing
capacity, here I have considered third one also to re check it, so but the lowest value among
these three is this one. So, your allowable load carrying capacity or SBC safe bearing capaci-
ty will be 324.7 kN/m2 corresponding to these conditions. That means, these conditions that
means your foundation width is 3 meter, it is a square footing and your depth of foundation is
1.5 meter and position of water table is 2.5 meter from the ground surface, then only this
SBC value is 324.7 kN/m2.
If this condition changes, this value will also change. So, it is not a unique value remember
that, it is a function of depth of foundation, width of foundation and position of the water ta-
ble, even if your N value will remain say okay, and definitely if your width of foundation
changing, then automatically influence zone will also change and your N average value may
change also okay. So, you consider these things when you design okay. So that means among
these three, the lowest value will give safe bearing capacity or allowing bearing capacity
okay.
So the next one that I will discuss, I have discussed on the sand part and then I have dis-
cussed thus how to calculate the settlement and then how to design or determine the safe
bearing capacity for a shallow isolated foundation on sand. Now, the next one that I will dis-
cuss is I will design raft foundation on clay okay. So, I will discuss raft foundation on clay
and because I have discussed only one foundation design on sand, now I will discuss on clay,
how to design a foundation on clay and this is a raft foundation, keep the problem okay.
!
So design of raft foundation. Because last problem I have solved for the isolated footing, now
I will solve a problem for the raft foundation. Suppose this is your building column position
okay. So there are say 4 columns. This is also 4 by 4 column position for a building where I
will put the raft because initially we have to check the individual foundation for individual
column. Now it has been checked and it is observed that the foundations are overlapping each
other by dimension, so we are going for the raft foundation or sometimes in settlement crite-
ria also or differential settlement criteria also you can go for the raft foundation also.
Here, we will go for the raft foundation and the loading is coming for the periphery columns.
The load is coming 400 for each column. So, all the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, all the
11, 12, the load from the structure is coming 400 kilo newton as the periphery, where the in-
ternal columns load are coming 600 kilo newton for each, all the 4 columns, load is 600 kilo
newton okay, that is 600 kilo newton. The centre to centre distance for each column is 3.5
meter okay and here also centre to centre for each column is 3.5 meter.
As we consider the raft foundation, so what would be the dimension? First we have to choose
the dimensions. So we are choosing the dimension B and here as it is B and L will be same
because the spacing and the number of column in each direction are same. So B will be, there
is a three spacing, so 3.5 into 3 plus for the first trial what I am doing, I am taking 1 meter
extra from the centre of last column for both the sides. So 1 meter extra from left side and 1
meter extra from the right side for the first trial, let us see whether it is satisfying or not.
So the dimension will be 12.5 meter that is the width. Similarly, length will be 3.5 into 3 plus
again I am taking 1 meter each side, so that will be 12.5 meter okay. Now, how much total
load is coming? Total load is coming on the raft is, there are 12 columns those are carrying
400 kilo newton each, so 12 into 400 okay; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Then 4 columns
were carrying six hundred 600 kilo newton each, so 4 into 600. So, this total load is 7200 kilo
newton okay, that is the total load coming on this raft okay.
So, now the net load that is acting on this raft okay, we are taking the raft load we are ne-
glecting and considering that external load is much much more compared to the weight of the
raft. So, the total load that may stress or you can say that is 7200 or that is 12.5 into 12.5. So,
that is equal to 46.1 kN/m2. So, we have converted these loads and that amount of uniformly
distributed load is acting on the raft okay, and for the first trial, we are also assuming depth of
foundation is 1.5 meter okay.
So, this is the geometrical point of view or the loading point of view. Now, come to the soil
strata or soil point of view. So, suppose this is the ground level and we are considering this is
our raft okay. We are placing our raft here. So, this is the raft where the load of stresses is
coming and that is 46.1 kilo newton per meter square okay, and this is the ground level and
raft position is 1.5 meter below the ground level because Df for the first trial you have con-
sidered 1.5 meters.
For the first trial, you have taken the width of the foundation is or the raft is 12.5 meter, here
width and length both are same okay. The position of water table is also at 1.5 meters below
ground level okay. So if you say this is plus 0 meter, this will be 1.5 meter position of the wa-
ter table okay. Now there is the layer, different layer is there, this is layer 1 okay. So, there is
another layer, layer 2. This is another layer, layer 3, and this is another layer, layer 4. So,
there are total four layers within the influence zone and let us see which is within the influ-
ence zone or not.
So, the soil strata, we will get the soil strata from the soil investigation and these are the
properties and first trail we are placing a raft depth of raft is 1.5 meter below ground level
and the length of the raft is 12.5 meter and loading intensity is 46.1 kN/m2 square okay. So
now, this is minus 4 meter from the level, this strata is minus 12 meter from the ground level,
this strata is minus 20 meter from the ground level, this is minus 30 meter from the ground
level okay.
The properties are given for the strata one, unit weight is given 18 kilo newton per meter
cube and here it is assumed the unit weight above water table that means bulk and below wa-
ter table that means saturated is equal to same okay. So, I have discussed already it can be
different, it can be same, most of the cases it is different okay. Saturated unit weight is more
than the bulk unit weight, but here it is assumed more or less same okay. So the properties are
given, unit weight is kilo newton per meter cube 18 cu and then cohesion is taking 60 kilo
newton per meter square.
Then E value is taken or it is given is 42000 kN/m2 and Cc one plus E0 directly is given 0.05,
and if you say this E value is 42000 and Cu value is 60, so the relationship is coming you can
say Eu is 700 Cu okay, but that that means, this soil is normally consolidated clay okay. So
soil is given normally consolidated clay and Eu is 700 Cu, but the range I have given is 750 to
1200 Cu, but here it is given 700 as this value is given. If it not given, you can choose any
value from the range okay.
So, now the second layer, your unit weight is given again 18 kN/m3, Cu value is equal to 35
kilo newton per meter square, E value is equal to 24500 kN/m2, and Cc divided by (1 + E0)
zero is 0.1. Again, it is all the case Eu is 700 Cu. For the third layer, unit weight is 19 kN/m3,
Cu is your 70 , and E is 49000 kN/m2 okay. Again Cc 1+E0 is equal 0.06 okay.
For the fourth layer, your unit weight is 19 kN/m3, Cu is given 100 kN/m2, E or Eu is 70,000
kN/m2 and Cc 1+E0 is equal to 0.03 okay. So, this is the strata and these are the first trial we
are taking the dimension. So, now first we will calculate the bearing capacity, then we will
calculate the settlement and we will check whether both are within permissible limit or not.
So, the bearing capacity as I mentioned for the bearing capacity influence zone will be B.
So here B value is 12.5, so influence zone will be 12.5 from the base of the foundation. So,
the influence zone up to 12.5, so from the surface it is (12.5 + 1.5) , so it is 14 meter okay. So,
influence zone will be 14 meter up to here say for the bearing capacity calculation. This is the
influence zone, so 14 meter. That means here the influence zone for the first layer will be 2.5
meter, second layer 12 meter full, sorry 8 meter full because second layer is 8 meter, 2.5, then
another 2 okay.
So, for the bearing capacity influence zone of first layer is 2.5, second layer is 8 meter, and
third layer is 2 meter okay. So, in the next class, I will discuss that how I will calculate the
bearing capacity and then how we will calculate the settlement for these conditions. Thank
you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 8
Design of Shallow Foundation (Continued)
So in the last class, I was discussing about the design of a raft foundation on the clay. So, I
will start from there in this class and finish that problem in this class okay. So I will continue
the same problem the design of a raft foundation on clay okay.
!
So this was the problem that I was discussing and then the dimension for the first trial is tak-
en as 12.5 meter is B value and L value is 12.5 meter. Depth of foundation for the first trial is
taken as 1.5 meter and these are the soil properties okay.
!
So now for the bearing capacity calculation purpose, as I mean mentioned that here it is a
problem of clay, so I will use the Skempton bearing capacity equation, because that is applic-
able for clay and generally the bearing capacity okay, and the Skempton net ultimate bearing
capacity cNc, I am using Skempton one okay, net ultimate bearing capacity which is cNc and
Nc it is your square footing. So, for the rectangular footing, the common or the general equa-
tion is 1+0.2 B by L into 1+0.2 Df by B okay.
So, B is the width of foundation and L is the length of foundation. So, this is 5 1+0.2 and that
is a square footing, B by L will be 1, then 1+0.2 and Df is 1.5 and B value is 12.5 meter okay.
So, this value is coming 6.144. Now, here as I mentioned in the last class that the influence
zone is B that is 12.5 meter from the base of foundation. So, for the first layer, it will be 2.4
meters, second layer it will be 8 meter, and third layer it will be 2 meter. So, if I take the av-
erage value.
So, now if you look at the variation, so first layer Cu value is 60, second layer 35, and third
layer is 70 okay. So, we are taking the average c, Cu average that is 60 for the first layer and
2.5 meter okay. Second layer the Cu value is 35 and that will be 8, then 2 meter into the 70,
Cu is 70, and total is 12.5, that is the total depth. So that is coming out to be 45.6 kilo newton
per meter. So, if you look at these values, so there are three Cu values within the influence
zone. One is 60, one is 35, one is 70 and average one is 45.6.
So, some people recommend that you use the 35 one because then you will be in the safe side
okay because 35 is the lowest value okay, so to be in the safest side you can use 35. So, that
is the designer’s choice which value he will use, either you can use 35 or you can use 45.6
okay. So I will use 45.6 kilo newton per meter square, but if you want, you can use the 35
also to be in the safe side okay. So, now I will use the q net ultimate, the Cu is 45.6 average
value, then Nc is 6.144, so that value is to 280.2 kilo newton per meter square okay.
And if you use the 35, then it will be so qnu if you use, if Cu is taken as 35 kN/m2, then it will
be 35 + 6.144, that is equal to 215 kilo newton per meter square. So, your load is coming on
the soil is this one, your 46.1 kN/m2 okay. So the factor of safety will be that if I use the low-
est one 46.1, then it is 4.7 okay. So that is more than 3 or 2.5, so it is safe, so, even if I use the
lowest value of Cu.
If I use the 280, then it will be more than 5 or something okay, but I will recommend you to
use the 280, but here that means your design is over safe. So, that means the dimension that I
have chosen is over safe, so I can slightly reduce the dimension, but I recommend not to re-
duce, this is the minimum dimension that I have taken because 1 meter from the centre of the
outer column is the minimum recommendation you can choose, otherwise if the column is
very very near to the edge of the footing, then it is not good.
So, that means here, I have taken the minimum one even if it is safer as bearing, I have not
checked the settlement one, let me check the settlement one, then we will see whether it is
over safe or not, but now in terms of bearing, it is was safe. So, it is safe against bearing.
Now let us go for the settlement calculation okay.
!
So now the next one, I will go for the settlement calculation. So here our qn is 46.1 kN/m2,
that means that stress is coming on the soil and B is 12.5 meter, μ
! is taken as 0.5 as it is a clay
soil and for the immediate settlement, your equation of Si, immediate settlement is qn B E1
minus μ! square, then If okay. Then it is If, If is the influence factor. Now B we know that is
12.5 meters, then qn is 46.1. Then again for the E value, again it is the settlement, so the in-
fluence zone will be 2B, so 2B we will use, now influence zone is 25 meter okay.
So, influence zone is 25 meters, so it is up to 31.5 meters, so it will be up to here something.

So, influence zone will be 25 and then +1.5 from the top, it will be 26.5. So, 26.5 maybe
something here, so this will be the influence zone. So, for the settlement one influence in first
layer will be 2.5, second layer will be 8 meter, third layer will be again 8 meter and it is 26.5,
so for the fourth layer it will be around 6.25 okay. So, (6.25 + 8 + 8 + 2.5). So, this is the total
influence zone for the settlement calculation.
So now for the first layer it is 4200, second layer is 24500, third layer 45000 and fourth layer
70000 okay. So I will go for the average E value calculation, E average is 4200, I have taken
(42 X 2.5) okay first layer. Second layer is (24.5 X 8). Third layer it is (49 X 8) and the sixth
layer it is 70 X 6.5 okay and that is we are taking into 103 and that divided by 25. So that val-
(46.1 × 12.5 × 1.5)
ue is 46000 kilo newton per meter square okay. So finally the Si = .
46000
Now what is the If value? Let me check what is the If value okay. So first check the If value,
this is the table. As I mentioned for the rigid foundation, it is the raft, so it will be a rigid
foundation. For a rigid foundation also we will take the settlement value, influence factor of
the centre of the flexible foundation. So, it is a square footing. So, for the square footing, our
flexible foundation, the influence factor is 1.12 okay at the centre. So we will take 1.12 okay.
So, we are taking 1.12. So, this will be 1.12.
So, this value is 10.52 millimetre okay. Now, this is the uncorrected immediate settlement,
now we have to apply two corrections. So, the corrections one will be the depth correction
and then the rigidity correction. Now for the depth correction what will be the value? So
depth correction factor will be, so for that we will use the Fox chart. So there we need to
D
know ! . Now D is here 1.5, now root over L is 12.5, B is 12.5. So that value is 0.12
(L × B)
and L by B will be 1.
So let us go to the depth correction factor chart and then determine corresponding to L by B
equal to 1 and D root over L by B equal to 0.12, what is the correction factor okay. So let us
go to that chart okay, this is the chart. So here your L by B, this is the L by B is 1, that means
D
this chart we will use okay. So if I use this chart and = ! by root over L by B is 0.12,
(L × B)
L
0.12 means here okay and this is the ! = is 1, this chart and 0.12, so I will go here, so this is
B
the value. So this value is almost 0.98 okay because this is 1, this is 0.9.
So this value will be 0.98 because it is a very shallow depth, so that is why depth correction
factor is very close to 1. If I go to higher depth, then the correction factor will be less than
very, I mean around 0.6, 0.7 or and even for the pile foundation it will be very low value. So
now the depth correction factor is 0.98. So we will go to our problem. So, depth correction
factor we are getting 0.98 and rigidity correction factor is 0.8. So, Si corrected will be 10.52
into 0.98 into 0.8, so that is equal to 8.2 millimetre. So, immediate settlement is coming out
to be 8.2 millimetre.
!
Now, I will go for the consolidation settlement okay. The consolidation settlement the equa-
tion is given Cc 1+E0, then H log 10 p0 bar plus δp divided p0 bar okay. Now how I will calcu-
late, in which point I will calculate p0 bar and δp because we have now four layers okay and
influence zone is 25 meter from the base of the foundation, so which point we will calculate?
So, let us go to the figure.
So, this is the figure and one thing I want to mention that suppose here there is a rigid base
and here in this case influence zone within the soil, not in the rigid part, but if the influence
zone is within the rigid part, then consider only the soil part property, not the rigid part be-
cause you do not have the point, that may be the rock, where we would assume that there will
be no settlement. So, you consider only the soil part even if influence zone is within the rock.
So, that rock portion influence zone you neglect, you calculate the settlement within the soil
part only.
But in this case, the total influence zone is within the soil, so there is no problem, but at
which point you will calculate the δp or the p0 bar? So I will calculate the centre point of each
layer. So this is from the base, centre point from the each layer means from the base it will
start, so from the base, this is your 2.5 meter. So I will calculate here. A point is 1.25 meter
from the base. Then I will calculate at B point which is at 4 meter from the first layer, be-
cause this is 8 meter.
Then I will calculate at C point which is also 4 meter from the third layer because this is from
the second layer, this is 4 meter, this 8 meter. Then I will calculate at this point, which is, this
is because this is your 6.5 meter, so this point will be half of that, this will be 3.25 meter
okay. So, at A, B, C, D these four points, I will calculate the stresses and these four points is
centre of that particular layer okay. So now I will calculate those stresses at these four points.
So at point A okay.
So p0effective, so p0 bar effective means if you see that that here water table, so when you
calculate the stresses I have to consider from the ground surface because that stress will also
act at point A. So, I will consider at the ground surface. So, at the ground surface, this 1.5 me-
ter unit weight will be the bulk unit weight that is 18 kN/m3, but below the water table, all the
unit weight will be the submerged unit weight. What is submerged unit weight, that means
this is saturated minus unit weight of water.
Saturated unit weight is here for the first layer say 18 kN/m3 minus unit weigh of water is
taken as 10 kN/m3, so this will be 8 kN/m3 for layer one okay. So submerged, so we are tak-
ing unit weight of water is 10 kN/m3. So, if I follow that process, that means at 1.5 will be
18,/kN/m3 then it is 1.5 and then 1.25 is below water level, 1.5 meter, that means point A is
1.5 + 1.25 meter from the ground surface and among that layer depth 1.5 is above water table
and 1.25 is below water table okay.
So, I will take that is 1.5 is above water table and 1.25 is below water table and that is 8. So,
that was case, sigma 0 bar will be 37 kN/m2. Now δp, how I will calculate the del p. For δp
calculation, suppose this is the width of the foundation and where your q is acting, this is
your B, this is your distribution of the stresses at any say height H okay. So, what would be
the stresses at this level that is δ! p okay. So stresses at this level is basically δ! p. Now here, I
will follow 1 is to 2 distribution method.
So, that means if this is 1, this will be two 2, or if this is 1, this will be half okay, and here
also I will consider 1 : 2 distribution method. So, now that means if this is B, this is H. If this
is H, this will be H by 2 okay, this is B, this will be again H by 2, so the total width will be B
+ H okay. So, that will be the point where I can calculate the δ! p. So, here δ! p I can calculate,
first you calculate q into B into L, then this will be B + H or H1, then L + H1 okay because it
will distribute in the length direction also.
So, that means the area of the point where I am calculating the del p will be B + H into L + H.
So, here for the first layer, it will be your q is 46.1, B is 12.5, and L is also 12.5. So, this will
be your B is 12.5. Now, your H value is, how much is H value. For the A point, H value will
be 1.25 because your stress is distributed from base of the foundation. So, H value is 1.2. So,
I can write this is 1.25 okay, so that is square. So, that value will be 38.1 kN/m2.
Now similarly, I can calculate at point B. At point B, p0 bar will be, what is the p0 bar, I will
show you only two points, then rest of the thing I will write directly. So, point AB, the depth
is 1.5, then 4, then 4 okay. So 1.5 of the first layer above ground level and 2.5 of the first lay-
er below ground level and 4 meter from the second layer which is definitely below water lev-
el okay. So, that means, here I can write that is 1.5 into 18 + 2.5 into 8 and for the second lay-
er the unit weight for the second layer is again 18 kN/m3, that is saturated also.
So I can write for the second layer also 18 minus 10 into 4. So, that is 79 kN/m2 and δp again
I can write 46.1 into 12.5 square. Now this point, its depth is 12.5 then + 2.5 for the first layer
from the base + 4 okay. So that is square, so that will be 19.95 kN/m2. Similarly at point C,
directly I am writing that value, at point C it is 1.5 into 18 + 2.5 into 8 + 8 into 8 + that is
your 19 minus 10, now, here it is 4 meter again, that is 147 kN/m2.
Now del p again here 46.1 into 12.5 square, then this is 12.5 + 14.5 square. So, that is 9.9 kN/
m2 okay. Now similarly at point D, your p0 bar you can calculate and that value will be 1.5
into 18 + 2.5 into 8 + 8 into 8 + 9 into 8 + again 19 minus 10 into 3.25, that is equal to 212.25
kN/m2 and your δ p value is equal to 46.1 into 12.5 square divided by 12.5 + 21.75 square
okay and so this is 6.14 kN/m2 okay.
!
So, now finally, if I put those values for the first layer, the Cc for the first layer if you see that
value, first layer Cc 1+E0 is 0.05 and thickness will be from the base, so this will be 2.5, sec-
ond layer thickness will be 8 meter, third layer thickness will be 8 meter, and fourth layer
thickness will be 6.5 meter, not the total fourth layer because total fourth layer is not within
the influence zone, we will consider the thickness of those layer that is below depth of the
foundation within that total influence zone okay.
So, I can put this value. So this is your 0.05, thickness of first layer is 2.5 meter, this is locked
in, this is 37, δpo bar + 38.1, δp 1, then 37 okay, then plus, this is 0.1 into 8 into log 10 79 +
19.95 divided by 79 then plus for the third layer 0.06, again 8 locked in it is 147 + 9.9 and
this is your 14.147. Then for the fourth layer 0.03, 6.5 meter, then locked in it is 212.25 +
6.14 divided by 212.25 okay. So the final value will be thirty 38.43 + 78.23 + 13.59 + 2.41.
So, that is 132.66 millimetre.
So, this is the uncorrected value and we have to apply 3 corrections here, one is rigidity cor-
rection, one is depth correction, one is pore water pressure correction okay. So, the depth cor-
rection factor, again it will be 0.98 okay, rigidity correction factor will be 0.8 and as I men-
tioned if nothing is mentioned, you can take pore water correction for normally consolidated
case 0.7. So, here pore water correction factor we are taking 0.7. So, our corrected value will
be 132.66 into 0.98 into in 0.8 into 0.7.
So, that value is 72.8 millimetre. So, the total S or ρ! or S settlement total will be your 8.2 that
is immediate settlement corrected, then 72.8 that is equal to 81 millimetre. So, now as per IS
code what is the permissible value, so it is on clay that is plastic clay and it is raft and RCC
foundation, so, permissible value will be 100 mm/sec , so it is less than 100 millimetre, so, it
is safe and it is not over safe also, but the dimension that we have chosen it is the minimum
requirement.
So, we will not change it again, so even if is not over safe because 100 is the required value
and we are getting 81 millimetre. So, that is safe against bearing and safe against the settle-
ment also. So, the dimension that we have chosen that is appropriate okay, and as I mentioned
previously also, your design means the dimension, the depth of foundation and the dimension
of the foundation. So, I have discussed two cases, one is the isolated footing on sand and one
is the raft foundation on the clay.
So, now here the same way, you can design the isolated footing on clay also, the only differ-
ence will be here rigidity correction will not be applied in case of isolated footing, but other
design procedure is same as the raft foundation, but that means that will be only individual
column. So, remember that if you are designing on the sand, then try to use the available field
test data, in if it is clay, then you have to use the laboratory test data to design your founda-
tion. So, these are your basic or normal design guidelines for the shallow foundation.
So, in the next class, I will start the soil structure interaction part. These eight lectures were
the kind of introduction type of lectures where I have discussed our traditional design meth-
ods for shallow foundation on sand and clay. So, next class, I will start the soil structure in-
teraction part. First, I will introduce the modulus of sub-grade reaction concept, then how to
determine the modulus of sub-grade reaction, what are the factors affecting the modulus of
sub-grade reaction, and next week, I will discuss about the different available models to mod-
el the soil structure interaction problem. Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 9
Soil – Structure Interaction for Shallow Foundation:
Concept of Subgrade Modulus
So in the last class, I have discussed to design raft foundation or how to design a raft founda-
tion on clay and then I have discussed in previous classes that different bearing capacity ex-
pression and then how to determine the safe bearing capacity for isolated footing resting on
sand. Now, today I will start the main soil structure interaction part and then first part I will
discuss about the soil structure interaction for shallow foundation and then I will introduce
the concept of sub-grade modulus or reaction of sub-grade modulus and then I will discuss
about various models, soil structure interaction models in next classes.
!
So, first what are the things that I will discuss in the soil structure interaction part that basi-
cally the definition or the things that I will cover in this course is the analysis of interaction
between structural elements such as beams and plates on finite or infinite extend resting on
idealised deformable media. That means, in this course, I will concentrate only the interaction
between structural elements such as beam and plates, which is resting on deformable medium
or soil medium, and then these beam or plates can be finite or infinite also.
Then for every cases, I will also give you the application areas where I can apply the these
models basically for different soil condition and different loading condition, and then in one
lecture particularly, I will discuss the real application of these models to determine the prop-
erties or the settlement, bending moment or shear force of different foundations. Now, in the
previous lectures, I have discussed the conceptual or conventional foundation design for shal-
low foundation design on sand or clay, but here if you have noticed that we are using the
loading intensity resting on the soil.
That means we are not considering any structural element, we are only considering the inten-
sity of load that is acting on the soil and then based on that, we apply two basic criteria, one
is settlement criteria and the bearing capacity criteria and then we will design the foundation
okay. That means we apply the load and we check whether the soil is capable to take that load
or not and for that soil what would be the maximum settlement and that settlement under that
load is within permissible limit or not.
So, these two criteria is we basically check during our previous problems and to check those
criteria, we have to use some theories for bearing capacity as well as the settlement. Now,
when you are designing a foundation, then not only the settlement is the one basic criteria
because for conventional design, we use settlement and the bearing capacity are the two ma-
jor criteria, but in addition to that, we need to know that what is the bending moment or the
shear force coming to that foundation?
Because that part we do not consider in our conventional foundation design, because when
you design it for the structural part, we determine the bending moment to provide the rein-
forcement that is separate, but for considering soil and the structural interaction, what would
be the bending moment and the shear force or the intensity of the loading or the reaction?
Those things we do not consider during our conventional design of foundation, but here in
this lecture, in this course, I will consider those interactions.
Considering those interaction, I will determine what would be the settlement, what would be
the bending moment or the shear force or the slope on a beam, on a structure, or a foundation
and to determine those things, we have to idealise those foundations either as a beam or as a
plate. Now, those beans or plates can be finite or infinite depending upon where we are using
those elements. Now, as I mentioned in my previous classes also that for shallow foundation,
it can be isolated footing, combined footing, raft foundation, and then we will apply these
models for the pile foundation and some transportation system like pavement and rail tracks.
So, these idealisation or these models in this course, I will apply on these areas okay. These
are our general soil structure interaction problems that one I will apply its isolated or com-
bined footing, I will apply these concepts in raft foundation, then pile foundation design, and
transportation system like plates or pavements and I will give that which type of model I will
use where, those examples I will show.
That means in addition to that, the soil structure interaction problem can be used for any un-
derground structures like ship pile also and retaining wall also, but those things I will not dis-
cuss in this course. I will discuss in this course in the following areas only, isolated footing or
combined footing, the raft or the shallow foundation, pile foundation, and transportation sys-
tem like rail tracks and pavement design okay.
Then what are the models, types of models, these models can be mechanical or mathematical
types or it has sometimes the closed form solution or sometimes we use the numerical tool to
solve these model to determine our required properties.
!
So, before I start that part that first let talking about the idealisation of the soil medium or any
medium. So soil medium idealisation, first the model or the idealisation is proposed by Win-
kler okay, that is in 1867. What was the idealisation? The idealisation is that we replace the
soil by springs. So, these are the springs that we use as per the Winkler model. So, these are
the idealisation. So, Winkler idealisation consists of a system of mutually independent, dis-
crete, linearly elastic springs with spring constant k.
So, that means we have a spring, so these springs are independent, that means these springs
are not connected to each other, these springs are linearly elastic. That means if I draw the
settlement and stress diagram for the spring, that means these are linearly elastic okay. So it is
linearly this stress versus settlement or stress versus strength deformation pattern is linearly
and this spring constant is k, so that means, we have idealised the soil. So, that is why you
can see in this figure a where UDL is applied on the spring.
Depending upon the intensity of the loading, this spring will deform and here a concentrated
load is applied on a spring, so it will deform and here these footing is applied on a spring so
and that is the concentrated load, it will deform, here also UDL with uniform intensity. As the
intensity of the loading is not uniform, so, it is nonuniform, and that is why the deformation
is also nonuniform. Here it is uniform, so, that is why deformation of the spring is also uni-
form. So, that means, these are the four cases where we idealise the soil with the spring.
Now, then it is mentioned the deflection of soil medium at any point on the surface is directly
proportional to the stress applied at that point and independent of stress applied at other loca-
tion. So, that means one particular point, the deformation, if that deformation w, if I take it is
x,y, x,y means if I consider it is x direction, it is y direction, and this is the w direction defor-
mation. So, that means, this deformation if I apply the loaded region is this one and below
that there is a spring okay and then this q is the loading intensity.
Then, the stress applied at any point is proportional to the deformation of all, the deformation
of any point is proportional to the stress applied on that particular point and it is independent
to the stresses applied to other points because there is no interaction between these spring. So,
that is why this is as the q is proportional to w, that means, there is a proportionality constant
k is used. This k is nothing but the spring constant okay. So, that means q applied stress at
any point is equal to k into deflection of that part.
So, that means if I know the spring constant, if I know the q, then we can determine the de-
formation. So, that means, the deformation of a point will be equal to q x,y divided by k. So,
if I know the spring constant, if I know the intensity applied on a particular point, then we
can determine what would be the deformation of that point. Now, this k is called the spring
constant as we have replaced the soil by spring, but in terms of our soil mechanics or founda-
tion bearing, this k is called as modulus of sub-grade reaction okay.
So this k is called the modulus of sub-grade reaction and as the k is equal to the q, that means
stress at any point and then the deformation of that point, so the unit of k is kilo newton per
meter square per meter okay. Sometimes it is written as kilo newton per meter cube also, but I
would recommend you to write kilo newton per meter square per meter because in foundation
bearing, the kilo newton per meter cube is generally the unit of unit weight. So, that is why
we can write the k unit is kilo newton per meter square per meter. So, this is called the modu-
lus of sub-grade reaction.
!
So, next we will discuss that how we can determine this modulus of sub-grade reaction. So,
first that means, the soil is idealised with the spring. The spring constant is termed as the
modulus of sub-grade reaction. Next, we should know that property because here ultimately
in this model, our aim is to determine the deflection under a known intensity of loading. So,
to determine the deflection, we should know what is the parameter k value. So, here only one
parameter is involved.
So it is generally known as the one parameter model because the only one parameter is k, that
is modulus of sub-grade reaction. So now, we should know this parameter, then only we can
determine the deflection under a known stress. So, how will determine this modulus of sub-
grade reaction? The modulus of sub-grade reaction can be determined with the plate load test
okay. In lecture 5, I have already discussed what is plate load test. So, by using that plate load
test, we can determine the modulus of the sub-grade reaction.
So, what is here written, the ratio of a load per unit area of horizontal surface of a mass of
soil to corresponding to settlement of that surface. So that means that if we have a load, this
is the stress or load versus settlement plot, then modulus of reaction, we can determine that
stress of a point and corresponding deformation of that point. That means if this is the stress
of a point q of a point and w is the deformation, then the modulus of sub-grade reaction will
be q by W. So, as I mentioned in plate load test, we will get a load versus deformation or load
versus settlement plot.
Suppose, this is the load versus settlement plot, so modulus of sub-grade reaction we will get
the stress of a particular point. Suppose this on the curve, the stress of a particular point di-
vided by the corresponding deformation. So, that will give us the modulus of sub-grade reac-
tion. That means, here it is determined at the slope at line joining between the point corre-
sponding to 0 settlement and the point of 1.25 millimetre settlement of a load deflection
curve obtained from plate load test using a diameter of plate 75 centimetres or smaller diame-
ter, but not less than 30 centimetres.
Because that means, you conduct a plate load test with a plate dimension of 75 centimetres or
less, but not less than 30 centimetres, then you will get a load versus settlement plot. Now the
k value is equal to the stress corresponding to 1.25 millimetres settlement. So, suppose here
this is your stress versus settlement plot, so this is in terms of millimetre, so this point is 1.25
millimetre okay. So, corresponding stress q or p you determine, so k will be p by 1.25 here.
So, unit will be either if p is MPa, then MPa plus centimetre or it will be kPa kN/m2 okay,
here it will be centimetres, so it will be your ki in kN/m2/cm, so depending upon which unit
you are using. Here if this is per centimetre, if the p value is MPa, then this will be MPa per
centimetre. If p value is kPa, then this will be kilo newton per meter square or kPa per cen-
timetre or if it is kilo newton per meter square, then it will be p divided by 1.25, then you
have to convert it for the meter also.
It is in millimetre, so it will be 10-3 okay. Then in this case, this deformation is in millimetre
and this is in kilo newton per meter square, then you can convert it into minus 3, then this
unit will be kilo newton per meter square per meter okay and 1.25 is millimetre okay, re-
member that. So, this way that means, stress corresponding to one 1.25 millimetre or 0.125
centimetre okay. So, this is one definition and this is as per IS 9214-1979 it is given. Alterna-
tively also, IS score recommended some other way to determine the k value that I will discuss
later on.
So, that means we will get the k value and one thing I want to mention that suppose this k
value initial portion should be straight line, linear, because if you look at your load versus
settlement plot, suppose this is your stress q or p and this is your deformation, then this set-
tlement plot maybe something here. So, you can determine the k value at any point okay.
That means at any point to consider, then you take that stress and corresponding settlement,
so you will get the k value, but this k value we should consider the initial portion okay.
So, that means, initial portion should be straight line, that mean that is the straight portion we
are talking about. This is the k that we are talking about, p 0.125 okay. So, now, if initial por-
tion is not straight, then what we have to do? We have to take this point which is correspond-
ing to the 1.25 settlement, the you join this zero point, then this will be a straight line, then
slope of this line will give you the k value, which is the same as k corresponding to p divided
by 1.25 okay.
So, that means the slope of this line also you can take as a k value, then that will be also giv-
ing the same value that you are considering that is the p divided by 0.125, but 0.125 in cen-
timetre and one 1.25 in millimetre, but if you see this curve that as I mentioned, we can de-
termine k value at any point over this curve okay, but the initial point, then you can take the k
value in here also, here also you take a k value, you can take the slope on this point, then also
you can draw a tangent on this point, then slope will give you one k value okay.
So in this way, your k value will also change over the load settlement time, but that the initial
one is called the initial k value. So, but in the initial problem we are talking about, these
springs are linear, so that is why we will concentrate only the elastic zone, later on when I
will discuss the nonlinearity of the model, that means when you introduce nonlinear springs,
here as per Winkler idealisation that your springs are linear, so that is why we will discuss
only the linear part.
So, that is why we will consider the straight portion, that means initial linear portion and then
we consider this k value, but later on, when we discuss the nonlinear spring, then how to
change this k value over the load versus settlement plot that also I will discuss, in that case
your k value will not be constant, it will change over the settlement. So, that means if you
change the settlement, then your k value will also change, but for this linear model, your k
value is constant over the linear portion.
We will consider only that linear portion because we consider that our model is linear. So,
that is why it is clear that how we will determine our k value from a load versus settlement
plot okay.
!
So next one that quickly I will just go through this the plate load test method that I have dis-
cussed already in the lecture 5, you just go through the lecture 5 and you will find that it has
been already discussed. So, as I mentioned that for any type of field test, the plate load test is
also not recommended for the cohesive soil because of its long term behaviour. So, this is the
arrangement. So, these are the plate whose diameter 30 centimetres to 75 centimetres diame-
ter range.
These are the stacked plate and we have to apply the load by the reaction and then that load
we measure by probing ring or nowadays we can use the load cell or the settlement will be
determined by the dial gauges or by the LVDT. Now, ultimately we will get the load versus
settlement okay.
!
Then these are the setup, this is the setup I have shown.
!
These are the description that you have to provide a 5 millimetre fine sand is placed before
plate is placing and generally size of plates is 30 centimetres, 45 centimetres, 60 centimetres,
and 75 centimetres. It can be circular or square. And generally for the dense or stiff soil,
smaller size plates are used and the larger size plates are used for loose and soft soil. Then
loading are applied vertical by reaction and before we start the actual loading, a seating load
of 70 gm/cm2 or 0.07 kg/cm2 is first applied.
Just correct it, in the lecture 5 it is mentioned 70 kg/cm2, actually it is 70 gm/cm2 or 0.07 kg/
cm2. So seating load is 0.07 kg/cm2 is applied and then it is released, then the actual load is
applied, sometimes you release and actual load is applied.
!
So, next is that loading is applied one-fifth of the estimated safe load and it can go up to the
failure or at least 25 millimetre settlement, whichever is earlier. Then at each load, settlement
is recorded for certain interval and these are the times and it is then taken after one hour in-
terval. For the clay soil if the 70% to 80% settlement is already occurred, then you can stop
or you can apply the next increment of load or after 24 hours we apply the next increment of
load. So, increment of load is decided by one-fifth of the estimated safe load.
Then for other soil if the rate of settlement is 0.02 mm/min, then we apply the next increment
of load. So, we have to apply the load, then we have to give the time to settle. So, that means
when it is under stable condition, so that mean this is the condition that 0.02 mm/min if the
rate of settlement is there, they we will take the reading and we will apply the next increment.
!
Then we apply either two or three dial gauges. If it is 3, then 120 degree difference, and if it
is 2, then two opposite diagonal of the plate okay. So, then ultimately, we will get the load
versus settlement plot of this curve.
!
So, that is the curve and this I have already explained. So, this is the curve load versus set-
tlement for different types of soil. So, this is the particular curve. So, initial portion that
means the stress corresponding to 1.25 millimetre settlement, that means k is equal to stress q
or p 1.25 millimetre. So, this is millimetre, so unit maybe it is MPa /cm or this will be as it is
given in millimetre, so you can go it is MPa / mm or depending upon finally we can go it for
kilo newton per meter square per meter, but this is if q value is in MPa.
So, if your q or p value is in mPa and it is one 1.25, so this will be MPa /mm okay or finally
generally we can produce it at kN/m2/m. This will be the initial linear portion only. So, in the
next class, I will discuss that what are the factors affecting this k value, because as it is men-
tioned that if we are applying on the surface of the loading, but in actual case if we apply the
foundation in certain depth, then you have to apply some correction.
So, if we apply different sizes of plate and then how to use the real foundation k value, then
we have to apply some correlation. So, those correlations I will discuss in the next class.
Thank you.
Prof. Kousik Deb
Lecture - 10
Soil – Structure Interaction for Shallow Foundation:
Concept of Subgrade Modulus (Continued)
So in the last class, I have discussed about the plate load test to determine the sub-grade
modulus reaction, then we discussed that how to determine it by using different plate size.
Now, today I will discuss that what are the factors affecting or what are the factors affect
these sub-grade modulus and then the first one I have discussed that how to determine that k
value. Then once you get the k value, then you have to apply some corrections, so depending
upon the different cases.
!
Now first one is the size of plate. So, what is the size of plate affect the modulus of sub-grade
reaction. So, that if our modulus of sub-grade reaction at any point at any condition is k, then
B + B1 2
you can correlate it = k! 1 × ( ) Now this expression is for sandy soil okay. Now for the
2B
B1
clay soil, the similar kind of expression will have that k is =!k1 × . So this is for clay or
B
specifically stiff clay okay. So these expressions are proposed by Terzaghi in 1955 okay.
Now, what is k or what is k1 and similarly the B is the side dimension of a square plate used
in plate load test. So, Terzaghi recommended that this value B value is 0.305 meter or it is 1
feet. So, that means here B value is the plate used in the plate load test and that dimension is
0.305 meter or it is a square plate. Similarly B1 is the side dimension of any full size
foundation okay and k1 is the sub-grade modulus produced by the plate load test using plate
sides B1 and that is your 0.305 meter and k is the desired value of sub-grade modulus for full
size foundation okay.
So, that means, these expressions we can use for a plate load test of plate size 0.305 m and k1
is the sub-grade modulus determined from the plate load taste with a square plate size of
0.305 m. Remember that that here your space size is 0.305 m, So, k we are getting by using a
plate of size 0.305 m and it is a square plate. So, now if you can determine for any plate size
or any real foundation what would be the k value.
So, first we determine the sub-grade modulus by using this plate size 0.305 m square plate
okay, note and then we can use this correlation and you can get sub-grade modulus at any
dimension of foundation or plate, so k1 will be your obtained sub-grade modulus and then k is
the sub-grade modulus at any condition, any dimension of plate or foundation. Similarly this
chart is giving the same thing that width is the B is in feet and this is the ratio. So, this
expression and this chart are same okay. So, this is the expression.
B1
So, for sandy soil, this is the expression and clay soil, the k = k! 1 × and this specifically is
B
valid for the stiff clay okay. So, next one that I will discuss about the shape of plate. So,
previous one was the size of plate, now next one is the shape of plate okay.
!
The shape of plate similarly for the clay soil specifically stiff clay or medium dense sand, the
L
k1 × B
× [1 + 0.5 BL ]
expression is k is = ! . So here that means, we are using a rectangular or
1.5( BL )
square plate, then we can determine it for any plate dimension and then we can convert it for
other dimension also. So, that means here this L by B is the ratio of length versus B. So, now
we can change this L by B ratio by changing B keeping L constant or changing L keeping B
constant, but here this expression is valid by changing L keeping B constant okay.
So here, your B1 is equal to or B is equal to constant and that is equal to B1 and that value is
again 0.305 or 1 feet okay. This expression is also given by Terzaghi in 1955 okay. So, again
the k1 is the same obtained sub-grade modulus from the plate load test of a square plate of
dimension 0.305 okay. So k1 is same as we explained in the previous case. Now, by using that
k1 value, we can determine the k for any plate size, it can be a rectangle also or any
foundation with rectangle shape okay.
So, that is the effect of the shape of plate. Now, for long steep okay, when your L is very large
than the B okay or you can say your L tends to infinity or close to infinity okay, then your =
L B
! value will be also infinity okay or you can say my ! value which is close to 0 okay. So
B L
L
now, if your value is close to 0, then we can write that k is equal to your, this is k1. Now, if
B
L
k1 × B
× [1 + 0.5 BL ]
I convert this thing by writing that, this is ! .
1.5( BL )
B B L
So, now if I take ! , ! or I can form this expression also, I can take your ! out. So, then this
L L B
L (1 + 0.5) × B
will be, first let me take ! out, so this will be ! okay and this will be your . So
B L
L L (1 + 0.5B)
, will be canceled out. So this is k1 by 1.5 x and this is . Now if your B by L is
B B L
B
0 or close to 0, now if my is close to 0, then this expansion will be k1 divided by 1.5 or we
L
can write this will be 2/3 of k1, which is 0.67 x k1 okay.
So now for the long steep, your k value is point, so that means k value is 0.67 x k1 okay. So,
here your L is equal to length of the plate or foundation and B is equal to width of the
foundation okay. So, this way we can incorporate the shape effect of a plate.
!
The next one is the embedded depth of plate. Now, generally the modulus of elasticity of
granular soil increases with increasing confining pressure. Thus in case of granular soil
medium, it is assumed that the modulus of elasticity increases linearly with depth, but in case
of cohesive soil, k maybe assumed to be independent of depth. That means this depth effects
for the clay soil, the modulus of sub-grade reaction is generally independent to the depth of
the soil, but for the granular soil, it is not independent to the depth, it is dependent on the
depth.
So, for the granular soil, we have to apply the corrections. So, that correction we can write in
D
this form that if your k! / is written k! /= k! //[1 + 2 × ] okay, so where D is depth of the plate or
B
foundation okay and B is the width of the plate or foundation and k is the modulus or you can
write this is key double dash, so k// double dash is the modulus of sub-grade reaction, reaction
when a square plate is located at the surface okay.
So that means here, if your plate depth is or the depth of the plate is 0, that means the plate is
located at the surface, and when you obtain the k value from that plate load test that is written
as here k double dash, so then we can determine the k value at any depth by using this
expression okay. So, D is the depth of the plate and k double dash is the modulus of sub-
grade reaction obtained by conducting a plate load test of square plate placing it on the
surface okay.
So now considering both depth effect and the size effect, considering both effect of size and
B + B1 2 D
depth, we can write that our k =!k1[ ] [1 + 2 × ], okay, but remember that this value
2B B
B + B1 2
should not be greater than 2!k1[ ] . Now, when I discuss about the size of it, then I
2B
B + 0.305 2 D
mention that B1 value is 0.305 meter. k =!k1[ ] [1 + 2 × ].
2B B
So, remember that here this expression as B1is mentioned as 0.305, so you have to use B as in
meter, D and B both will be in meter okay as your B1 is given as in meter. So, remember that
you B is in meter and D is in meter okay. So, this is considering both the effect. Now as I
mentioned, so this is also proposed by Terzaghi in 1955 okay and this expression it is valid
for the granular soil because as we mentioned the depth effect is significant in the granular
soil, in cohesive soil k is assumed to be independent of depth okay, but for c-phi soil, then
what will be the effect, but c-phi it has some effect.
So c-phi soil we can write our k is equal to ka the combined one =
B + 0.305 2 D K
. k! a[ ] [1 + 2 × ] + b × 0.305
2B B B
So in the previous expressions also, remember that B is in meter if B1 is in meter okay. So

here, we combine the effect of granular soil and the cohesive soil. So, that means your c-phi
soil, this is the k here for the granular part and the cohesive part combining both shape effect
because here, the depth effect is not incorporated in the cohesive part because the cohesive
soil k value is independent to depth, but in the granular part, the deep effect is incorporated,
so this is the expression.
So but how we can calculate ka and kb where ka and kb should be evaluated by performing at
least two test using two different sizes of plate, say you can use 0.3 meter plate or 0.5 meter
plate, 5.6 meter plate okay. So that means in this equation, we have basically two unknowns
okay, that is ka and kb, because others are you should know the B value, may be know on
which dimension you want to determine the k or you should know the D value because at
what depth you have placed your foundation, but ka and kb are unknown.
So, this kb and ka are determined by using two plates of different sizes, that means for the c-
phi soil, you conduct a plate load test of using 0.3 mm plate size, then you will get one k
value that you put here, for different plate you can use these expression. Then also you
conduct another plate load test. So, there also you will get a k value that you put here, then
you have two unknowns, two equation, you solve them. So, you will get the ka and kb value
okay. So, that kb and ka value you put here, you will get the expression.
So, that means you have to conduct at least two plate load test to determine ka and kb. By
plate load test you will get one k value, that k you put in corresponding depth and b value you
put in these expressions, so you will get one expression of say k1, so you will get for the first
plate load test k1. So, if I say this is the one constant into (k + b x kb), then you conduct
another plate load test, then you get this is a// ka + b//kb.
So, this a dash, b dash, a double dash, b double dash these are known value because these
dimension or the depth and B you should know. So, you have two equations, so you solve
them, your k1 and k2 is also known. So, you form here, you will get k1 and kb, that k1 kb you
put it here, you will get a complete equation okay. If you conduct more tests, then you will
get more value of, that means value of k1. Suppose you conduct another plate load test, then
you will get another expression, k3 is equal to a///ka + b///+ kb.
Then you have three equations, but two unknowns okay. Then you take pair of any two, that
means either you take one and two, then you solve, then you will get ka and kb. Then you take
two and three, you solve, you will get ka and kb. Then you take one and three, you will get ka
and kb. Then you can take the average value of these ka and kb and that you put in this
equation, then you will get the complete equation of clay. So, I have discussed this effect for
granular soil and c- phi soil and for the c soil, cohesive soil, it does not have any effect, depth
does not have any effect okay.
So, in the next class, I will discuss another way of determination of modulus of Sub-grade
reaction, that is as per IS code, and then also I will discuss some corrections those are
required as per the IS code. Thank you.
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
h,,7482=8*#i
49&
j&k

9
9
&N8" Z&RPRPlPQlRWmRS UY'%4
ONP8"
^&_ \
P
h,,7482=8*#,Dn27**=<#58#gigioiGogip#ii-qr#stA
8
!SY" G9 àbcdef
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8" #03
#n3
ONW8" #:3
#<3
ONX8"
u=,p#*)=#08,/=F#7,#:5FF=:*3##
ONY8" t:5F=-#G
h::=+*=<#h8,/=F,-
vw
ONQP8"
g9 àbcdef
ONQQ8"
ONQR8"
Z[O26[\Z]'Z5[%
8"
\
%&
8"
#03
6'

#n3
%8"
#:3
4
4
8" #<3
# u=,p#*)=#08,/=F#7,#:5FF=:*3##
t:5F=-#G
h::=+*=<#h8,/=F,-
xw
78 023456

!
"#
98 023456

!
$#
8 023456

!
$#
8 023456

!"
78 023456

!"
98 023456

!"
8 023456

7

789 023456

7

!
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
u,,7482=8*#G
49&
v&w

9
9
&N8" x&RPRPyPRyQRzRS UY'%4
ONP8" u,,7482=8*#,Dl27**=<#58#]{]{|{]|{]}#]c-]]#ZbA
ONQ8" G9 nopqrst
C=:*DF=#G-#Z8*F5<D:*758
(D87*[D87*\]^>=,,58\G_9
C=:*DF=#]-#̀=0F784
L0+0:7*1#5a#b57>#(D87*[
D87*\]^>=,,58\GI9
C=:*DF=#c-#̀=0F784
L0+0:7*1#5a#b57>#(L58*<39
(D87*[D87*\]^>=,,58\Gd9
C=:*DF=#_-#̀=0F784 #u3
L0+0:7*1#5a#b57>#(L58*<39 #̀3
(D87*[D87*\]^>=,,58\Ge9 #L3
C=:*DF=#I-#b=**>=2=8*#5a #~3
b)0>>5/#f5D8<0*758#(D87*[ =,}#*)=#08,/=F#7,#:5FF=:*3##
D87*\]^>=,,58\Gg9 b:5F=-#G
C=:*DF=#h0*=F70>,#(D87*[ u::=+*=<#u8,/=F,-
D87*\]^>=,,58\dd9
i&j k
Q ]9 nopqrst
8
!VW"
f==<l0:E#f5F#m==E#G
(D87*[D87*\]^>=,,58\e_9
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8"
ONW8"
#u3
ONX8" #̀3
ONY8" #L3
#~3
ONQP8" =,}#*)=#08,/=F#7,#:5FF=:*3##
b:5F=-#G
ONQQ8" u::=+*=<#u8,/=F,-

ONQR8" c9 nopqrst
0123415078091

5

48

)*
+*
,*
-*
./01234567389695:/883:1*
;:/83<=
)::3>13?)567386<
@A
&' !"#$%
)*
+*
,*
-*
B36012345673896:/883:1*
;:/83<C
)::3>13?)567386<
DA
(' !"#$%

!

"#
78 023456

$

%
!

&#
98 023456

$

%
!

78 023456

! "
#$"
%
98 023456

! "
#$"
%
8 023456

012456789
698 16 4
16
64689
69

1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
v,,7482=8*#d
49&
w&x

9
9
&N8" y&RPRPzPRzQR{RS UY'%4
m&&9
&x

9

ONP8"
G9 opqrstu
ONQ8"
ONR8"
C=:*DF=#Z-#-#[=,748#5\
])0>>5/#^5D8<0*758#(D87*_
D87*àb>=,,58`GH9
C=:*DF=#c-#[=,748#5\
])0>>5/#^5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*àb>=,,58`de9
C=:*DF=#f-#[=,748#5\
])0>>5/#^5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*àb>=,,58`dG9
C=:*DF=#H-#]57>g]*FD:*DF= #03
h8*=F0:*758#\5F#])0>>5/ #i3
^5D8<0*758#-#L58:=+*#5\
]Di4F0<=#j5<D>D,#(D87*_ #:3
D87*àb>=,,58`dd9 #<3
C=:*DF=#Ge-#]57>g]*FD:*DF= ?5|#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3#
h8*=F0:*758#\5F#])0>>5/ ]:5F=-#e
^5D8<0*758#-#L58:=+*#5\ v::=+*=<#v8,/=F,-
]Di4F0<=#j5<D>D, }~
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*àb>=,,58`da9 d9 opqrstu
C=:*DF=#j0*=F70>,#(D87*_
D87*àb>=,,58`fe9
k&l m
R
8
!VX"
^==<i0:E#^5F#n==E#d
(D87*_D87*àb>=,,58`cI9
ONS8"
ONT8"
#03
ONU8" #i3
ONV8" #:3
#<3
ONW8" ?5|#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
]:5F=-#e
ONX8" v::=+*=<#v8,/=F,-
~
ONY8" a9 opqrstu
01124567
01124467
01124867
9
0
99

67
167
111
167
1 !67
"
"-.
"/.
"0.
"1.
234"567"-89:7;"<9"<803;;705.""
=03;7>"?
@007A571"@89:7;9>
BC
*+ #$%&'()
"-.
"/.
"0.
"1.
234"567"-89:7;"<9"<803;;705.""
=03;7>"?
@007A571"@89:7;9>
DC
,+ #$%&'()
"-.
"/.
"0.
"1.
234"567"-89:7;"<9"<803;;705.""
=03;7>"?

78 023456

! "

#
98 023456

! "

8 023456

! "

#
78 023456

!
9
8 023456

"!
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
t,,7482=8*#f
49&
u&v

9
9
&N8" w&RPRPxPRxQyzRS Uy'%4
k&&9
&v

9

ONP8"
G9 mnopqrs
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
C=:*DF=#GG-#Y57>ZY*FD:*DF=
[8*=F0:*758#\5F#Y)0>>5/
]5D8<0*758#-#L58:=+*#5\ #03
YD^4F0<=#_5<D>D, #^3
(L58*<39#(D87*`
D87*abc>=,,58abd9 #:3
C=:*DF=#Ge-#Y57>ZY*FD:*DF= #<3
[8*=F0:*758#\5F#Y)0>>5/ ?5{#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3#
]5D8<0*758#-#L58:=+*#5\ Y:5F=-#d
YD^4F0<=#_5<D>D, t::=+*=<#t8,/=F,-
(L58*<39#(D87*` |}
D87*abc>=,,58abG9 e9 mnopqrs
C=:*DF=#Gf-#g7\\=F=8*
]5D8<0*758#_5<=>,#(D87*`
D87*abc>=,,58abe9
C=:*DF=#Gb-#g7\\=F=8*
]5D8<0*758#_5<=>,
(L58*<39#(D87*`
D87*abc>=,,58abf9
C=:*DF=#GI-#g7\\=F=8*
]5D8<0*758#_5<=>,
(L58*<39#(D87*` #03
D87*abc>=,,58abb9 #^3
C=:*DF=#_0*=F70>,#(D87*` #:3
D87*abc>=,,58ahe9
#<3
i&j k
S ?5{#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
8
!XQ" Y:5F=-#d
]==<^0:E#]5F#l==E#f t::=+*=<#t8,/=F,-
(D87*`D87*abc>=,,58ahf9 ~}
ONT8" f9 mnopqrs
ONU8"
ONV8"
ONW8"
ONX8"
0112456
01127856
01127756
01127956

0

56
156
111
156
1!"56
#
#./
#0/
#1/
#2/
345#678#.9:;8<#=:#=914<<816/##
>14<8?#@
A118B682#A9:;8<:?
CD
+, $%&'()*
#./
#0/
#1/
#2/
345#678#.9:;8<#=:#=914<<816/##
>14<8?#@
A118B682#A9:;8<:?
ED
-, $%&'()*
#./
#0/
#1/
#2/
345#678#.9:;8<#=:#=914<<816/##
>14<8?#@
A118B682#A9:;8<:?
ED
78 023456

!"!
#$
98 023456

!"!
%$
8 023456

!"!
&$
8 023456

!"!
'$
8 023456
12
32
42
52
6789
1 47492
47
4495

1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
t,,7482=8*#b
49&
u&v

9
9
&N8" w&RPRPxPRxRVyRS UY'%4
j&&9
&v

9

ONP8" j
9v9
9&&#
#
ONQ8" G9 mnopqrs
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
C=:*DF=#GZ-#[7\\=F=8*
]5D8<0*758#^5<=>,
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*Ìa>=,,58`bI9
C=:*DF=#Gc-#[7\\=F=8*
]5D8<0*758#^5<=>,
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*Ìa>=,,58`bZ9
C=:*DF=#Gd-#e=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758#(D87*_
D87*Ìa>=,,58`bc9
C=:*DF=#GH-#e=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*Ìa>=,,58`bd9
C=:*DF=#fg-#e=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*_
D87*Ìa>=,,58`bH9
C=:*DF=#^0*=F70>,#(D87*_
D87*Ìa>=,,58`dc9
h&i j
T
8
!XT"
]==<k0:E#]5F#l==E#b #t9
(D87*_D87*Ìa>=,,58`dd9 #e9
ONU8" #L9
#[9
ONV8" ?5z#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
{:5F=-#g
ONW8" t::=+*=<#t8,/=F,-
|}
ONX8" f9 mnopqrs
ONY8"
ONQP8"
01124456
01124756
890
98 89
56
156
111 !,*
156 !-*
!.*
156 !/*
! 012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3=!!
><1:5?!@
,<<5A35B!,7895:8?
CD
)* "#$%&'(
!,*
!-*
!.*
!/*
012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3=!!
><1:5?!@
,<<5A35B!,7895:8?
CD
+* "#$%&'(
!,*
!-*
!.*
!/*
012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3=!!
><1:5?!@
,<<5A35B!,7895:8?
ED
78 023456
8
8
8
8

!
"#
$%
98 023456
8
8
8
8

!
"#
$%
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!
"#
$%
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!

"#
78 023456
8
8
8
8

!

"#
9
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!

"#
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
q,,7482=8*#I
49&
r&s

9
9
&N8" t&RPRPuPSuPTvRS UY'%4
g&&9
&s

9

ONP8"
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8" #
ONT8"
ONU8"
C=:*DF=#ZG-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58Îa9
C=:*DF=#ZZ-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58ÎG9
C=:*DF=#Zb-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58ÎZ9
C=:*DF=#Zc-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58Îb9
C=:*DF=#ZI-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58Îc9
C=:*DF=#d0*=F70>,#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58^GGG9
e&f g
U
8
!YQ" G9 jklmnop
\==<h0:E#\5F#i==E#I
(D87*]D87*^_`>=,,58^GGb9
ONV8"
ONW8"
ONX8"
#03
ONY8" #h3
#:3
ONQP8"
01124456 !./
012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3/!!
01124756 =<1:5>!?
@<<5A35.!@7895:8>
890
98 89 BC
56 )* "#$%&'(
156
111
156
156
! !6/
!D/
!</
!./
012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3/!!
=<1:5>!?
@<<5A35.!@7895:8>
EC
+* "#$%&'(
!6/
!D/
!</
!./
012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3/!!
=<1:5>!?
@<<5A35.!@7895:8>
FC
,* "#$%&'(
!6/
!D/
!</
!./
012!345!67895:!;8!;7<1::5<3/!!
=<1:5>!?
@<<5A35.!@7895:8>
EC
-* "#$%&'(

!
"#
78 023456

!
$#
98 023456

!
%#
8 023456

!
&#
8 023456

8

789 023456

8

!
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
r,,7482=8*#[
49&
s&t

9
9
&N8" u&RPRPvPSvQQwRS UY'%4
h&&9
&t

9

ONP8"
G9 klmnopq
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8"
C=:*DF=#Z[-#-#\=02,#58 #03
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*^ #i3
D87*_à>=,,58_II9 #:3
C=:*DF=#Z`-#\=02,#58 #<3
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758 ?5x#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3#
(L58*<39#(D87*^ y:5F=-#d
D87*_à>=,,58_I[9 r::=+*=<#r8,/=F,-
C=:*DF=#Zb-#\=02,#58 z{
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758 Z9 klmnopq
(L58*<39#(D87*^
D87*_à>=,,58_I`9
C=:*DF=#ZH-#\=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*^
D87*_à>=,,58_Ib9
C=:*DF=#cd-#\=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*^ #03
D87*_à>=,,58_IH9 #i3
C=:*DF=#e0*=F70>#(D87*^ #:3
D87*_à>=,,58_GGI9
#<3
f&g h
V ?5x#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
8
y:5F=-#d
!QQR" r::=+*=<#r8,/=F,-
]==<i0:E#]5F#j==E#[ |{
(D87*^D87*_à>=,,58_GGb9 c9 klmnopq
ONW8"
ONX8"
ONY8"
01124567 "./
"0/
01124467 "1/
"2/
01124867
345"678".9:;8<"=:"=914<<816/""
9
0
99
>14<8?"@
67 A118B682"A9:;8<:?
CD
167 *+ #$%&'()
111
167
1 !67
"
"./
"0/
"1/
"2/
345"678".9:;8<"=:"=914<<816/""
>14<8?"@
A118B682"A9:;8<:?
ED
,+ #$%&'()
"./
"0/
"1/
"2/
345"678".9:;8<"=:"=914<<816/""
>14<8?"@
A118B682"A9:;8<:?
CD
-+ #$%&'()
"./
"0/
"1/
"2/
345"678".9:;8<"=:"=914<<816/""
>14<8?"@
A118B682"A9:;8<:?

78 023456

!" !
#
98 023456

!" !

8 023456

8

789 023456

8

!
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
l,,7482=8*#k
49&
m&n

9
9
&N8" o&RPRPpPSpQXqRS UY'%4
h&&9
&n

9

ONP8"
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8"
ONW8"
C=:*DF=#ZG-#[=02,#58 #
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58âb9
C=:*DF=#Zc-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58âG9
C=:*DF=#ZZ-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58âc9
C=:*DF=#Zd-#[=02,#58
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58âZ9
C=:*DF=#ZI-#[=02,#58 #
B>0,*7:#\5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58âd9
C=:*DF=#e0*=F70>,#(D87*]
D87*^_`>=,,58^Gcb9
f&g h
W
8

!QQV"
\==<i0:E#\5F#j==E#k
(D87*]D87*^_`>=,,58^GcG9
ONX8"
ONY8"
01124567 *+ #$%&'()
01124467
01124867
9
0
99

67
167
111
167
1 !67
"
"./+
".0+
".1+
".2+
345"678"9:;<8=">;">:?4==8?6@""
A?4=8B"C
/??8D68E"/:;<8=;B
FGH
,+ #$%&'()
"./+
".0+
".1+
".2+
345"678"9:;<8=">;">:?4==8?6@""
A?4=8B"C
/??8D68E"/:;<8=;B
FIH
-+ #$%&'()
"./+
".0+
".1+
".2+
345"678"9:;<8=">;">:?4==8?6@""
A?4=8B"C
/??8D68E"/:;<8=;B
FIH
78 023456
8
8
8
8

!" #
$% "
&'(
98 023456
8
8
8
8

!" #
$% "
&)(
8 023456

!" #
$% "
'*
8 023456

!" #
$% "
'*
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$%
78 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$%
9
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#&%

+
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
s,,7482=8*#c
49&
t&u

9
9
&N8" v&RPRPwPSwRUxRS UY'%4
i&&9
&u

9

ONP8"
G9 lmnopqr
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8"
ONW8"
ONX8"
C=:*DF=#Z[-#-#\=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*^
D87*_H`>=,,58_[H9
C=:*DF=#Za-#\=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*^
D87*_H`>=,,58_ab9
C=:*DF=#Zc-#\=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*^
D87*_H`>=,,58_aG9
C=:*DF=#ZH-#\=02,#58
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758 #s3
(L58*<39#(D87*^
D87*_H`>=,,58_ad9 #\3
C=:*DF=#eb-#\=02,#58 #L3
B>0,*7:#]5D8<0*758 #y3
(L58*<39#(D87*^ ?5z#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3#
D87*_H`>=,,58_aZ9 {:5F=-#b
C=:*DF=#f0*=F70>,#(D87*^ s::=+*=<#s8,/=F,-
D87*_H`>=,,58_GdZ9 |}
g&h i
X d9 lmnopqr
8

!QQY"
]==<j0:E#]5F#k==E#c
(D87*^D87*_H`>=,,58_Gde9
ONY8"
01124567
01124467
01124867
9
0
99

67
167 "./
111 "0/
167 "1/
"2/
1 !67 345"678"9:;<8=">;">:?4==8?6/""
@?4=8A"B
" .??8C68D".:;<8=;A
EF
*+ #$%&'()
"./
"0/
"1/
"2/
345"678"9:;<8=">;">:?4==8?6/""
@?4=8A"B
.??8C68D".:;<8=;A
GF
,+ #$%&'()
"./
"0/
"1/
"2/
345"678"9:;<8=">;">:?4==8?6/""
@?4=8A"B
.??8C68D".:;<8=;A
HF
-+ #$%&'()

!

"#
78 023456

!

$#
98 023456

!

78 023456

! "
#$"
%
98 023456

! "
#$"

8 023456

! "
#$"
&
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
u,,7482=8*#H
49&
v&w

9
9
&N8" x&RPRPyPTyPQzRS UY'%4
l&&9
&w

9

ONP8"
G9 nopqrst
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8" #(u9
ONV8" #({9
#(L9
ONW8" #(e9
ONX8" ?5|#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3#
g:5F=-#^
u::=+*=<#u8,/=F,-
ONY8" }~
C=:*DF=#ZG-#@>0*=,#58 a9 nopqrst
B>0,*7:#[5D8<0*758#(D87*\
D87*]G^_>=,,58]`H9
C=:*DF=#Za-#@>0*=,#58
B>0,*7:#[5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*\
D87*]G^_>=,,58]H^9
C=:*DF=#Zb-#@>0*=,#58
B>0,*7:#[5D8<0*758
(L58*<39#(D87*\
D87*]G^_>=,,58]Ha9 #(u9
C=:*DF=#ZZ-#@>0*=,#58 #({9
B>0,*7:#[5D8<0*758 #(L9
(L58*<39#(D87*\
D87*]G^_>=,,58]Hb9 #(e9
C=:*DF=#ZI#-#c,=#5d#[787*= ?5|#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
e7dd=F=8:=#f=*)5<#d5F#g57> g:5F=-#^
g*FD:*DF=#h8*=F0:*758 u::=+*=<#u8,/=F,-
@F5i>=2,#(D87*\ }
D87*]G^_>=,,58]HZ9
j&k l
Y
8

!QRW"
C=:*DF=#f0*=F70>,#(D87*\
D87*]G^_>=,,58]GaH9
[==<i0:E#[5F#m==E#H
(D87*\
D87*]G^_>=,,58]GbZ9
01124567 *+ #$%&'()
01124467
01124867
9
0
99

67
167
111
167
1 !67 "/0+
" "/1+
"/2+
"/3+
456"789":;<=9>"?<"?;@5>>9@7A""
B@5>9C"D
0@@9E79F"0;<=9><C
GHI
,+ #$%&'()
"/0+
"/1+
"/2+
"/3+
456"789":;<=9>"?<"?;@5>>9@7A""
B@5>9C"D
0@@9E79F"0;<=9><C
GJI
-+ #$%&'()
"/0+
"/1+
"/2+
"/3+
456"789":;<=9>"?<"?;@5>>9@7A""
B@5>9C"D
0@@9E79F"0;<=9><C
GKI
.+ #$%&'()

8

8

8

8

!"

#$%
78 023456

8

8

8

8

!"

#&%
98 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$%
78 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$%
9
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#&%
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
q,,7482=8*#Gi
49&
r&s

9
9
&N8" t&RPRPuPTuPXvRS UY'%4
w&&9
&s

9

ONP8"
G9 jklmnop
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8"
ONW8"
ONX8"
ONY8"
ONQP8"
#(q9
C=:*DF=#Z[#-#\,=#5]#^787*= #(x9
_7]]=F=8:=#̀=*)5<#]5F#a57>
a*FD:*DF=#b8*=F0:*758 #(L9
@F5c>=2,#(L58*<39#(D87*d #(_9
D87*eGGf>=,,58eHI9
?5y#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
C=:*DF=#Zg#-#\,=#5]#^787*= a:5F=-#i
_7]]=F=8:=#̀=*)5<#]5F#a57> q::=+*=<#q8,/=F,-
a*FD:*DF=#b8*=F0:*758 z{|
@F5c>=2,#(L58*<39#(D87*d
D87*eGGf>=,,58eH[9
C=:*DF=#Zh#-#\,=#5]#^787*=
_7]]=F=8:=#̀=*)5<#]5F#a57>
a*FD:*DF=#b8*=F0:*758
@F5c>=2,#(L58*<39#(D87*d
D87*eGGf>=,,58eHg9
C=:*DF=#ZH#-#\,=#5]#^787*=
_7]]=F=8:=#̀=*)5<#]5F#a57>
a*FD:*DF=#b8*=F0:*758
@F5c>=2,#(L58*<39#(D87*d
D87*eGGf>=,,58eHh9
C=:*DF=#Ii#-#\,=#5]#^787*=
_7]]=F=8:=#̀=*)5<#]5F#a57>
a*FD:*DF=#b8*=F0:*758
@F5c>=2,#(L58*<39#(D87*d
D87*eGGf>=,,58eHH9
C=:*DF=#IG#-#\,=#5]#^787*=
_7]]=F=8:=#̀=*)5<#]5F#a57>
"#$%&#%$'!()#'$*&#+,) >6 OPQRSTU
-$,./'01!23,)#456!2%)+#7
%)+#899:/'11,)89;;6
<'&#%$'!=>!?!",+/!"#$%&#%$'
()#'$*&#+,)!@,$!-+/'
A,%)4*#+,)!2%)+#7
%)+#899:/'11,)89;96
<'&#%$'!B*#'$+*/1!2%)+#7
%)+#899:/'11,)89CD6
EFG14H
511I
1J4K76
A''4.*&L!A,$!M''L!9;
2%)+#7
%)+#899:/'11,)89CN6
01124456
01124756
890
98 89 !2W6
56 !2X6
!236
156 !2Y6
111 Z,[!#\'!*)1]'$!+1!+)&,$$'&#5!!
156 "&,$'?!;
W&&'^#'4!W)1]'$1?
156 _à
C6 OPQRSTU
!
!2W6
!2X6
!236
!2Y6
Z,[!#\'!*)1]'$!+1!+)&,$$'&#5!!
"&,$'?!;
W&&'^#'4!W)1]'$1?
_ba
V6 OPQRSTU
!2W6
!2X6
!236
!2Y6

!"#
78 023456
$8
$%8
$&8
$'8

!(#
98 023456
$8
$%8
$&8
$'8

!)#
8 023456
$8
$*8
$8
$8

!+#
8 023456
$8
$*8
$8
$8

!
78 023456
"8
"#8
"8
"8

$!
9
8 023456
"8
"#8
"8
"8

%!
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
n,,7482=8*#GG
49&
o&p

9
9
&N8" q&RPRPrPTrQUsRS UY'%4
t&&9
&p

9

ONP8"
G9 ghijklm
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8"
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8"
ONW8" #(09
ONX8" #(u9
#(:9
ONY8" #(<9
?5v#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
ONQP8" [:5F=-#c
n::=+*=<#n8,/=F,-
ONQQ8" wxy
C=:*DF=#IZ#-#[57>#[*FD:*DF= a9 ghijklm
\8*=F0:*758#]5F#@7>=
^5D8<0*758#(L58*<39
(D87*_
D87*`Gab>=,,58`GcZ9
C=:*DF=#Id#-#[57>#[*FD:*DF=
\8*=F0:*758#]5F#@7>=
^5D8<0*758#(L58*<39
(D87*_
D87*`Gab>=,,58`Gcd9
C=:*DF=#II#-#[57>#[*FD:*DF=
\8*=F0:*758#]5F#@7>= #(09
^5D8<0*758#(L58*<39 #(u9
(D87*_
D87*`Gab>=,,58`GcI9 #(:9
C=:*DF=#Ie#-#[57>#[*FD:*DF= #(<9
\8*=F0:*758#]5F#@7>= ?5v#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
^5D8<0*758#(L58*<39 [:5F=-#c
(D87*_ n::=+*=<#n8,/=F,-
D87*`Gab>=,,58`Gce9 wxy
C=:*DF=#If#-#[57>#[*FD:*DF=
\8*=F0:*758#]5F#@7>=
^5D8<0*758#(L58*<39
(D87*_
D87*`Gab>=,,58`Gcf9
"#$%&'#!()!*!+,-.!+%'&$%&'# C9 PQRSTUV
/0%#'1$%-,0!2,'!3-.#
4,&051%-,0!67,0%589
6&0-%:
&0-%;<=>.#??,0;<@)9
"#$%&'#!(A!*!+,-.!+%'&$%&'#
/0%#'1$%-,0!2,'!3-.#
4,&051%-,0!67,0%589
6&0-%:
&0-%;<=>.#??,0;<@A9
"#$%&'#!B1%#'-1.?!6&0-%: !619
&0-%;<=>.#??,0;<CD9 !6L9
EFG144 !6$9
611H !659
1I4JK7
4##5L1$M!4,'!N##M!<< X,Y!%Z#!10?[#'!-?!-0$,''#$%8!!
6&0-%:
+$,'#*!@
&0-%;<=>.#??,0;<OA9 \$$#]%#5!\0?[#'?*
^_`
01124567 O9 PQRSTUV
890
98 89
67
167
111
167
167
!
!619
!6L9
!6$9
!659
X,Y!%Z#!10?[#'!-?!-0$,''#$%8!!
+$,'#*!@
\$$#]%#5!\0?[#'?*
â`
(9 PQRSTUV
!619
!6L9
!6$9
!659
X,Y!%Z#!10?[#'!-?!-0$,''#$%8!!
+$,'#*!@
\$$#]%#5!\0?[#'?*
^b`
W9 PQRSTUV
!619
!6L9
!6$9
!659
X,Y!%Z#!10?[#'!-?!-0$,''#$%8!!
+$,'#*!@
\$$#]%#5!\0?[#'?*

78 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$#!

98 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$#!
%
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$#!
&
789 023456

9

9

9

9

8

!"
1
,DE0>1083,0FE0F3GHHIJ4207>3:52#K
()**+,-..,/010234563789
()**+,-..,/01023456378.8:;<=*07>,.?@ABC9
2345689
!23456"#$#%%

&
&'

8&"
0
L5DF,=#5D*>78=
M23456
m,,7482=8*#Ge
49&
n&o

9
9
&N8" p&RPRPqPTqRRrRS UY'%4
s&&9
&o

9

ONP8"
ONQ8"
ONR8"
ONS8" #
ONT8"
ONU8"
ONV8" G9 fghijkl
ONW8"
ONX8"
ONY8"
ONQP8"
ONQQ8"
#(m9
ONQR8" #(t9
C=:*DF=#Z[#-#\57>#\*FD:*DF= #(L9
]8*=F0:*758#^5F#@7>= #(u9
_5D8<0*758#(L58*<39 ?5v#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
(D87*` \:5F=-#[
D87*aGbc>=,,58aGde9 m::=+*=<#m8,/=F,-
C=:*DF=#ZG#-#\57>#\*FD:*DF= wxy
]8*=F0:*758#^5F#@7>= e9 fghijkl
_5D8<0*758#(L58*<39
(D87*`
D87*aGbc>=,,58aGdb9
C=:*DF=#Ze#-#\57>#\*FD:*DF=
]8*=F0:*758#^5F#@7>=
_5D8<0*758#(L58*<39
(D87*`
D87*aGbc>=,,58aGdd9
C=:*DF=#Zb#-#\57>#\*FD:*DF=
]8*=F0:*758#^5F#@7>= #(m9
_5D8<0*758#(L58*<39 #(t9
(D87*` #(L9
D87*aGbc>=,,58aGdI9
#(u9
C=:*DF=#Zd#-#\57>#\*FD:*DF=
]8*=F0:*758#^5F#@7>= ?5v#*)=#08,/=F#7,#78:5FF=:*3##
_5D8<0*758#(L58*<39 \:5F=-#[
!"#$ V11*W#*;V!+X*2+4
!"#%&'()*++,!%&-./ YZ[
0*1#2*.345,")5#21#2* '/ OPQRSTU
6!#*271#",!8,29")*
:, !;7#",!<,!#;=/
!"#$
!"#%&'()*++,!%&->/
0*1#2*..45,")5#21#2*
6!#*271#",!8,29")*
:, !;7#",!<,!#;=/
!"#$
!"#%&'()*++,!%&-?/
0*1#2*@7#*2"7)+!"#$
!"#%&'()*++,!%&3A/
BCD5 EF V/
G \/
HEIJ
</
:**;K71L:,2M**L&N ]/
!"#$
!"#%&'()*++,!%&3N/ ^,_#̀*7!+X*2"+"!1,22*1#=
51,2*4A
0123415078091
V11*W#*;V!+X*2+4
Ya[
5
-/ OPQRSTU
48

V/
\/
</
]/
^,_#̀*7!+X*2"+"!1,22*1#=
51,2*4A
V11*W#*;V!+X*2+4
YZ[
3/ OPQRSTU
V/
\/
</
]/
^,_#̀*7!+X*2"+"!1,22*1#=
51,2*4A
V11*W#*;V!+X*2+4
Ya[
78 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$!
%&'
98 023456
8
(8
8
$8

!"
#$!
%)'
8 023456
8
8
8
8

!"
#$!
%*'
8 023456

9

9

9

9

8
!

"#$
789 023456

9

9

9

9

8
!

"%$
3.25 - DYNAMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
The effects of dynamic SSI depend upon mass and stiffness of the structure, stiffness of
the soil, and the damping properties of both the structure and the soil. Dynamic SSI is
actually a combination of two interactions- Kinematic Interaction and Inertial
Interaction. The stiffness of the structure is responsible for the kinematic interaction. On
the other hand, the inertial interaction is caused due to the mass of the structure.
3.25.1 - KINEMATIC INTERACTION
Kinematic interaction takes place when the development of the free-field motion is
obstructed by the stiffness of the foundation system. When foundation is subjected to
vertically propagating S waves having wavelength equal to the embedment depth, rocking
and torsion modes of vibration, which are absent in case of the free-field motion, are
induced in the structure because of kinematic interaction. The deformation occurred only
due to kinematic interaction can be calculated assuming that the structure and the
foundation have stiffness but they are massless. This is shown in Figure 3.102.
Figure 3.102 - Kinematic interaction analysis (Kramer, 1996) [57]
For this case, the equation of motion will be [57]:

+ ∗
=− ( ) …(19)
where,
= Mass matrix assuming structure and foundation massless,
Page 127 of 275

= Foundation input motion,
∗
= Stiffness matrix,
( ) = Acceleration at the boundary.
In the kinematic interaction step, the so-called foundation input motion is determined.
Usually, the kinematic interaction is neglected and the inertial interaction is only
performed, applying the free-field motion to the base of the structure.
For surface foundations and homogeneous soils this leads to conservative results, but in
the presence of pile foundations in layered soils the kinematic interaction effects should
be taken into account
The kinematic interaction can be described with the help of Figure 3.103.(a–d).
Figure 3.103 - Kinematic interaction: (a) vertical motion modified; (b) horizontal motion
modified; (c) incoherent ground motion prevented; and (d) rocking motion introduced
(Datta, 2010) [58]
In Figure 3.103(a), the vertical movement of the ground motion is restrained due to the
flexural stiffness the massless mat foundation. As a result of this, the movement of the
mat foundation differs from the free-field ground motion. In addition to that, because of
this action, the characteristics of the ground motion in the close vicinity and below the
foundation get changed from that of the free-field ground motion. This interaction of the
foundation with the ground motion is known as kinematic interaction. Similar examples
of kinematic interaction have been presented in Figure 3.103(b) and Figure 3.103(c). In
Figure 3.103(b), the vertically propagating shear waves have been restrained by the
embedded foundation. Figure 3.103(c) shows the incoherent ground motion, which is
generated below the foundation due to the vertically propagating shear waves, is
prevented due to the axial stiffness of the slab. In Figure 3.103(d), it is shown that the
Page 128 of 275

kinematic interaction can also be responsible for inducing rotational movement in a
foundation because of the vertically propagating purely S waves.
Kinematic soil-structure interaction is a problem of wave-diffraction. It consists in

determining the effect that a region (a pile foundation, for instance) with mechanical
properties differing from those of undisturbed soil has on the excited motion. The effective
excitation {up} acting on the foundation is formed by the sum of the free-field motion {uf}
and the diffracted wave motion {us} (Whitman & Bielak, 1980), also called scattered
motion: {up} = {uf} + {us} …(20)
Clough and Penzien [59] have explained the tau (τ) effect, which is another example of
kinematic interaction. In Figure 3.104, a ground motion is generated in the x-direction,
which varies with y, due to the horizontally propagating shear wave in the y-direction.
Figure 3.104 - Horizontally propagating shear wave in the y-direction beneath the rigid
slabs (Clough and Penzien,1993) [59]
This varying motion is restrained because of rigidity of the slab, and the motion of the
slab, in the x-direction, differs from that of the free-field ground motion. If τ2 is defined
as the ratio of the amplitudes of translational motion of the rigid base and the free-field
motion for a certain harmonic component, it is shown that [59]
#
!" = %"(# − &'( $)
$
…(21)
)* "-*
$= =
+, .())
…(22)
Page 129 of 275

where,
/(0) =
1234
5
= Wavelength,
D = Dimension of the base in y-direction,

67 = The apparent wave velocity.
From the equations 21 and 22, it can be shown that the values of τ2 decrease from unity
(at 8 = 0 and / → ∞) to zero (at 8 = 2= and / → >).
This signifies that if the dimension of the base of the foundation is very small compared
to the wavelength of the ground motion, the τ2 effect becomes negligible. On the other
hand, when the dimension of the base of the foundation is comparable with the
wavelength of the ground motion, the τ2 effect has to be considered, and in this case, the
base motion could be much smaller than the free-field ground motion.
3.25.2 - INERTIAL INTERACTION
The mass of the foundation and the structure causes them to respond dynamically.
Inertial interaction is that part of the SSI effect, which is related to the mass of the
structure. It is caused only due to the inertia forces developed in the structure because of
the movement of masses of the structure in the time of vibration. The inertial loads
applied to the structure generate an overturning moment and a transverse shear. When
the supporting soil is flexible, the inertial force transmits dynamic forces to the foundation
resulting in its dynamic displacement, which would not occur for a fixed-base structure.
The deformations occurred due to the inertial interaction can be calculated from the
equation of motion [57] for this case.
+ ∗
=− ? @ ?A ( )+ ( ) …(23)
where,
BCDEBDCF = Mass matrix assuming the soil massless (shown in Figure 3.105).
The inertial loading on the structure-foundation system is represented by the R.H.S. of

equation 23. It can be clearly understood that this loading is dependent upon the base
motion as well as on the foundation input motion including the kinematic interaction
effect.
Inertial interaction through base flexibility was introduced into the numerical model
using the beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation (BNWF) model
Page 130 of 275

Figure 3.105 - Inertial interaction analysis (NPTEL) [60]
Dynamic SSI phenomenon can be analyzed using two different methods. The first method
is called Direct Method, which is comparatively easier between the two methods but has
some limitations. To eliminate these limitations, a second method known as Substructure
Method is introduced, where a multi-step analysis has to be performed. In the present
study, as the direct method of analysis is employed, it is described in detail. However, a
brief discussion about the substructure method has also been presented.
Figure 3.106 - Response of soil-structure system on a soft soil site (Wolf, 1985) [61]
SSI can modify the response of a structure significantly, with the percentage change being
dependent on a number of factors. The flexibility of the soil column above the rock usually
increases the translational component. Kinematic and inertial interactions introduce a
Page 131 of 275

rocking component to the base excitation. Each frequency of the ground motion is
modified differently and the resultant motion can vary significantly from the control
motion. These interaction effects usually act as a low-pass (high-period) filter, removing
much of the higher frequency content from the control motion. The extent of these
modifications depends upon the intensity of excitation at the rock (control motion),
frequency content of the control motion, natural frequency of the soil column and the
natural frequency of the structure. Aside from the modification of the ground motion, the
dynamic properties of the soil-structure system can be quite different from those of the
fixed base structure. Additional flexibility at the base increases natural time-period of the
structure, with the percentage increase being dependent upon the relative stiffness of the
soil and structure. This added flexibility often decreases the spectral accelerations and the
design seismic lateral forces on a structure. Propagation of the earthquake waves away
from the structure will result in radiation damping to the soil-structure system. Rocking
of the foundation causes hysteretic action in the soil which further increases the damping
ratio of the system. In addition to modifying the inertial lateral forces, SSI generally
increases the absolute lateral displacements in a structure. This may be significant in tall
structures since rocking can substantially increase the lateral displacement at the top such
structures.
Soil Structure Interaction effects increase when the structure is very stiff relative to the
soil. For flexible structures on stiff soil, these effects are generally negligible. For stiff
structures on softer soil SSI effects can be substantial and should be accounted for.
3.25.3 - DIRECT METHOD
In this method of analysis, the structure, foundation and soil are modelled together using
FEM and the whole model is analyzed in a single step. The ground motion is considered
as the free-field motion and this motion is applied to all the boundaries. The soil domain,
with some material damping, is restricted using a fictitious exterior boundary. This
boundary has to be placed far away from the structure so that during earthquake, the
waves produced along the soil-structure interface cannot reach there. Nodes present along
the soil-structure interface are indicated by subscript f (foundation). On the other hand,
the nodes of the structure have been denoted using subscript st (structure) and the nodes
present along the interior foundation medium/soil are represented by subscript s (soil).
Page 132 of 275

Figure 3.107 - Finite element model of soil-structure system for direct method of
analysis (NPTEL) [60]
In Figure 3.107, the soil domain is modelled as an assembly of rectangular plane-strain

elements. At each node of these elements, two translational DOFs are considered. On the
other hand, the structure is modelled as an assembly of beam elements. The kinematic
interaction has been neglected and it is assumed that the foundation block will move with
free-field ground motion. The inertia forces, which act on the structure, result in the
vibration of the structure, foundation, underlying soil and the soil at the soil-structure
interface.
The equation of motion (in time domain) for the whole system shown in Figure 3.107 can
be written as
+ G" H + I = − J
…(24)
where,
M = Mass matrix of the whole system containing entire structure, foundation and soil
B B BM 0
=K M B N MM O +
B PPPPP PPPPP
M Q
MM
0 PPPPPPM PPPPP
Page 133 of 275

C2 = Damping matrix (Material) of the soil and the structure
RB B R BM 0
= K RM B NRMMB O + R PPPP PPPPP
RM Q
MM
0 PPPPP
R M PPPPP
R
K1 = Stiffness matrix of the whole system, which can be generated using standard
assembling procedure
B B BM 0
=K M B N MM O
B
+ PPPPP
MM
PPPPP
M Q
0 PPPPPM PPPPP
B = Mass matrix consisting of non-zero masses for the structural degree of freedom
B B BM 0
=S M B N MM O
B
0T
0 0 0
I = Influence coefficient vector,
U= Free-field ground acceleration,
u = Relative displacement vector with respect to the base.
Here the damping matrix C2 has been formed by generating damping matrix of the soil
and the structure separately from their modal damping ratio using Rayleigh damping and
then combining them together. The coupling terms between the structure and the soil are
taken as zero, while at the interface of the structure and the soil, they as considered as
non-zero.
The RHS of equation 24 represents the inertia force, which is responsible for the
deformation of the soil at the soil-structure interface when transferred to the foundation
(base) in the form of shear force and moment. The contribution of material damping
towards the response reduction of the soil-structure system is very less and can be
ignored. The deformation of the soil occurred because of the inertia forces acting at the
interface propagates in the form of radiation waves. These radiation waves result in
radiation damping, which mostly affects the response of the whole structure-soil-
foundation system. If the radiation damping does not die out at the boundary and reflects
back from there, some error may be introduced in the solution and also the problem
becomes very large. In order to decrease the problem size, the concept of absorbing
boundary condition is introduced in FEM.
Using the direct method, problems in time domain can also be solved in frequency domain
Page 134 of 275

using Fourier transform function for a certain free-field ground motion. If the time
histories of the ground motion differ at different supports, the problem can be solved by
adjusting the influence coefficient vector I used in equation 24.
Figure 3.108 - Schematic illustration of a direct analysis of soil-structure interaction

using continuum modeling by finite elements.
As schematically depicted in Figure 3.108, the soil is often represented as a continuum

(e.g., finite elements) along with foundation and structural elements, transmitting
boundaries at the limits of the soil mesh, and interface elements at the edges of the
foundation.
Evaluation of site response using wave propagation analysis through the soil is important
to this approach. Such analyses are most often performed using an equivalent linear
representation of soil properties in finite element, finite difference, or boundary element
numerical formulations (Wolf, 1985; Lysmer et al., 1999). Direct analyses can address all
of the SSI effects described above, but incorporation of kinematic interaction is
challenging because it requires specification of spatially variable input motions in three
dimensions. Because direct solution of the SSI problem is difficult from a computational
standpoint, especially when the system is geometrically complex or contains significant
nonlinearities in the soil or structural materials, it is rarely used in practice.
The main advantage of direct method is that in this method, non-linear behaviour of the
Page 135 of 275
soil can be taken into account. To solve dynamic SSI problem using direct method, several
computer programs and softwares (e.g., Abaqus, ANSYS, OpenSEES, SAP 2000) are used.
However, there are many drawbacks of direct method of SSI analysis. Some of them are
listed below:
Perfect representation of the damping matrix is difficult.
If a 3D system has to be modelled, the size of the problem turns into a very large one and
modelling of the soil-structure interface becomes very complex.
3.25.4 - SUBSTRUCTURE METHOD
This method of dynamic SSI analysis is computationally more efficient than the direct
method because using this method, most of the drawbacks of the direct method can be
eliminated. In this method of analysis, the effective input motion is initially represented
in terms of the free-field motion of the soil layer. Thereafter the soil (foundation) medium
and the structure are expressed as two independent mathematical models (substructures)
as shown in Figure 3.109.
In the substructure method of analysis, the soil-structure system is divided into different
components (or substructures) and the response of each substructure is calculated
independently. These substructures are ‘connected’ by applying equal and opposite
interaction forces to each of the substructure models. The responses of all the
substructures are later combined by superposition to calculate the final response of the
system. The substructure technique therefore provides an advantage of enabling to choose
a suitable method of analysis for each of the substructures. Since the individual responses
of the substructures are added by superposition, the substructure method is linear by
definition.
Substructure method is an established way of overcoming the difficulty of large

dimensionality in analyzing structures. The method is based on peculiar geometry of these
structures which could be used for numbering the boundary joints for a substructure
either in the beginning or towards the end. Extra advantage could also be taken of the
substructures identical in terms of geometry and loading both or in terms of geometry
alone.
Page 136 of 275

Figure 3.109 - Seismic soil-structure interaction with substructure method (Wolf, 1985)
[61]
The substructures are connected using interaction forces having equal amplitude. These
interaction forces act in opposite directions for the two substructures. The total motions
developed at the interface are obtained by adding the free-field motions at the interface of
the soil without considering the structure to the additional motions generated from the
interaction. The substructure method is said to be advantageous because this method
permits the breaking down of complicated soil-structure system into more manageable
parts. These parts can be analyzed, solved and checked very easily. As the damping and
stiffness properties of the soil are dependent on frequency, it is more convenient to
perform seismic response analysis in the frequency domain to get the response history.
After that, the obtained response history is converted in the time domain. It should be
noted that for modelling some soil-structure interaction phenomenon, it is necessary to
include some portion of the soil in the superstructure. This type of modelling is shown in
Figure 3.91(c). For these cases, two interfaces exist – one is at the free ground surface
while the other one is at the surface between the superstructure and the soil medium.
The substructure is obtained by projecting the dynamics of a linear finite element model
to a low-dimensional subspace spanned by so-called component modes. The component
mode can be a collection of various modes, such as a rigid body mode, a normal mode,
and a constrained mode. In recent years, the introduction and application of substructure
methods in the static and dynamic analysis of different structural systems have been
developed.
Page 137 of 275

Figure 3.110 - Seismic soil-structure interaction with substructure method: (a) SDOF
system resting on a half space; (b) modeling superstructure and soil medium separately;
(c) some portion of the soil is included in the superstructure model (NPTEL) [60]
Proper consideration of SSI effects in a substructure approach requires: (i) an evaluation

of free-field soil motions and corresponding soil material properties; (ii) an evaluation of
transfer functions to convert free-field motions to foundation input motions; (iii)
incorporation of springs and dashpots (or more complex nonlinear elements) to represent
the stiffness and damping at the soil foundation interface; and (iv) a response analysis of
the combined structure spring /dashpot system with the foundation input motion applied.
The superposition inherent in a substructure approach requires an assumption of linear

soil and structure behavior, although in practice this requirement is often followed only
in an equivalent-linear sense.
Most often, the soil-structure system is subdivided into the soil medium and the structure.
While the problem of calculating the structural response can be conveniently solved by
finite element methods, different methods exist to solve the ground response analysis
problem and the interaction problem. Sub-structuring methods can be classified into four
types based on the way the interaction problem is solved, 1) the rigid boundary method,
2) the flexible boundary method, 3) the flexible volume method, and 4) the subtraction
method.
All four methods involve site response analysis to calculate the free field ground motion,
impedance analysis to calculate the foundation impedance and the structural response
analysis to calculate the structural response.
Page 138 of 275

The first two methods also involve scattering analysis, which involves the calculation of
foundation input motion (motion at the foundation in the presence of a rigid, massless
structure).
Among substructure methods, component mode synthesis is the most widely used. The
substructure method can effectively reduce the degree of freedom of the complex and huge
multi-degree of freedom system, and then improve the analysis efficiency
Figure 3.111 - Schematic illustration of a substructure approach to analysis of soil

structure interaction using either: (i) rigid foundation; or (ii) flexible foundation
assumptions.
Page 139 of 275

NIST GCR 12-917-21
Soil-Structure
Interaction for
Building Structures
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

A partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
Disclaimers
This report was prepared for the Engineering Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research Contract
SB134107CQ0019, Task Order 69221. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of
NIST or the U.S. Government.
This report was produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Applied Technology Council (ATC)
and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While endeavoring to provide practical
and accurate information, the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, the authors, and the reviewers assume no liability for, nor
express or imply any warranty with regard to, the information contained herein. Users of information contained in this report
assume all liability arising from such use.
Unless otherwise noted, photos, figures, and data presented in this report have been developed or provided by NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture staff or consultants engaged under contract to provide information as works for hire. Any similarity
with other published information is coincidental. Photos and figures cited from outside sources have been reproduced in this
report with permission. Any other use requires additional permission from the copyright holders.
Certain commercial software, equipment, instruments, or materials may have been used in the preparation of information
contributing to this report. Identification in this report is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is
it intended to imply that such software, equipment, instruments, or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
NIST policy is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all its publications. In this report, information is
presented in both metric units and U.S. Customary Units (inch-pound), as the inch-pound system is the preferred system of
units in the U.S. earthquake engineering industry.
Cover illustration – Rendering of the Sherman Oaks building structural and foundation system, used in an example application
of soil-structure interaction principles (courtesy of C. Haselton).
NIST GCR 12-917-21
Soil-Structure Interaction for

Building Structures
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Engineering Laboratory
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
By
A partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
September 2012
U.S. Department of Commerce

Rebecca M. Blank, Acting Secretary

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce
for Standards and Technology and Director
NIST GCR 12-917-21
Participants
John (Jack) R. Hayes, Jr., Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Steven L. McCabe, Deputy Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
John (Jay) L. Harris III, Project Manager

Applied Technology Council Consortium of Universities for
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Research in Earthquake Engineering
Redwood City, California 94065 1301 S. 46th Street, Building 420
www.ATCouncil.org Richmond, California 94804
www.CUREE.org
Joint Venture Management Joint Venture Program Committee

Committee
Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager)
James R. Harris Michael Constantinou
Robert Reitherman C.B. Crouse
Christopher Rojahn James R. Harris
Andrew Whittaker William T. Holmes
Jack Moehle
Andrew Whittaker
Project Technical Committee Project Review Panel

Jonathan P. Stewart (Project Director) Craig Comartin
C.B. Crouse Yousef Hashash
Tara Hutchinson Annie Kammerer
Bret Lizundia Gyimah Kasali
Farzad Naeim George Mylonakis
Farhang Ostadan Graham Powell
Working Group Members Project Manager

Fortunato Enriquez David Hutchinson
Michael Givens
Curt Haselton
Silvia Mazzoni
Erik Okstad
Andreas Schellenberg

Preface
The NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture is a partnership between the Applied

Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). In 2007, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) awarded the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture a National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) “Earthquake Structural and
Engineering Research” task order contract (SB1341-07-CQ-0019) to conduct a
variety of tasks. In 2009, NIST initiated Task Order 69221 entitled “Improved
Procedures for Characterizing and Modeling Soil-Structure Interaction for
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering.” The purpose of this project was to
develop consensus guidance for implementing soil-structure interaction in response
history analyses, and to identify areas of further research that were needed. The
starting point for this work was decades of available soil-structure interaction
research, and recently published engineering guidance for static analysis procedures.
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis evaluates the collective response of three

linked systems: the structure, the foundation, and the soil underlying and surrounding
the foundation. Problems associated with practical application of SSI for building
structures are rooted in a poor understanding of fundamental SSI principles.
Implementation in practice is hindered by a literature that is difficult to understand,
and codes and standards that contain limited guidance. This report represents an
advancement in the state of SSI knowledge for practicing engineers. It provides a
synthesis of the body of SSI literature, distilled into a concise narrative, and
harmonized under a consistent set of variables and units. Techniques are described
by which SSI phenomena can be simulated in engineering practice, and specific
recommendations for modeling seismic soil-structure interaction effects on building
structures are provided. The resulting recommendations are illustrated and tested, in
detail, on realistic example buildings.
This work is the result of an extensive literature search and collection of available
information on soil-structure interaction, discussions with researchers and
practitioners on the state of SSI knowledge and practice, conduct of problem-focused
investigations, and analytical parametric studies. A workshop of invited experts and
other stakeholders was convened to receive feedback on the developing report and
preliminary recommendations. Input from this group was instrumental in shaping the
final product.
GCR 12-917-21 Preface iii

The NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture is indebted to the leadership of Jonathan
Stewart, Project Director, and to the members of the Project Technical Committee,
consisting of C.B. Crouse, Tara Hutchinson, Bret Lizundia, Farzad Naeim, and
Farhang Ostadan, for their significant contributions in the development of this report
and the resulting recommendations. Focused analytical studies were conducted by
Curt Haselton, Fortunato Enriquez, Michael Givens, Silvia Mazzoni, Erik Okstad and
Andreas Schellenberg. Technical review and comment at key developmental stages
on the project were provided by the Project Review Panel consisting of Craig
Comartin, Yousef Hashash, Annie Kammerer, Gyimah Kasali, George Mylonakis,
and Graham Powell. The names and affiliations of all who contributed to this project
are included in the list of Project Participants at the end of this report.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture also gratefully acknowledges Jack Hayes

(Director, NEHRP), Steve McCabe (Deputy Director, NEHRP), and Jay Harris
(NIST Project Manager) for their input and guidance in the preparation of this report,
Dave Hutchinson for ATC project management, and Peter N. Mork and Bernadette
Hadnagy for ATC report production services.
Jon A. Heintz
Program Manager
iv Preface GCR 12-917-21

Table of Contents
Preface ..................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ............................................................................. ix
List of Tables............................................................................. xix
1. Introduction ..................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background and Objectives ................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Overview of Soil-Structure Interaction .................................................. 1-3
1.3 Report Organization and Content .......................................................... 1-7
2. Inertial Interaction ............................................................ 2-1

2.1 Soil-Structure System Behavior ............................................................. 2-1
2.2 Equations for Shallow Foundation Stiffness and Damping ................... 2-8
2.2.1 Models for Rigid Foundations and Uniform Soils .................... 2-8
2.2.2 Effect of Non-Uniform Soil Profiles....................................... 2-17
2.2.3 Effect of Flexible Structural Foundation Elements ................ 2-20
2.2.4 Limiting Spring Forces ........................................................... 2-23
2.3 Impedance of Vertical Pile Foundations .............................................. 2-24
2.3.1 Impedance of Single Piles....................................................... 2-25
2.3.2 Impedance of Grouped Piles ................................................... 2-28
2.3.3 Discrete Element Methods (p-y and t-z Curves) ..................... 2-32
2.4 Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Models for Response History
Analysis ............................................................................................... 2-33
2.4.1 Nonlinear Structure and Equivalent-Linear Soil..................... 2-33
2.4.2 Nonlinearity in the Foundation and Soil ................................. 2-34
2.4.3 Model Comparisons and Recommendations for Response
History Analysis ..................................................................... 2-44
3. Kinematic Interaction ......................................................... 3-1

3.1 Shallow Foundations at the Ground Surface ......................................... 3-1
3.2 Embedded Shallow Foundations............................................................ 3-5
3.3 Pile Foundations .................................................................................... 3-8
3.4 Application of Transfer Functions ......................................................... 3-8
4. Implementation in Standards and Design Guidelines ................... 4-1

4.1 Force-Based Procedures......................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Displacement-Based Procedures ............................................................ 4-5
4.3 Response History Procedures ................................................................ 4-9
4.4 Nuclear Structures................................................................................ 4-10
5. Experiments and Case Studies .............................................. 5-1

5.1 Seismic Monitoring and Field Tests ...................................................... 5-1
GCR 12-917-21 Table of Contents v

5.1.1 System Studies .......................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Field Experiments for Foundation Impedance.......................... 5-2
5.1.3 Field Experiments for Nuclear Applications ............................ 5-5
5.2 Laboratory-Scale Tests .......................................................................... 5-6
6. State of Practice ............................................................... 6-1

6.1 Overview................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Observations .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 General Observations................................................................ 6-2
6.2.2 Collaboration Between Design Professionals ........................... 6-2
6.2.3 Information Needed by the Structural Engineer ....................... 6-3
6.2.4 Information Needed by the Geotechnical Engineer .................. 6-3
6.2.5 Understanding of Soil-Structure Interaction Principles ............ 6-4
6.2.6 Analysis Procedures.................................................................. 6-4
6.2.7 Implementation of Soil Springs ................................................ 6-5
6.2.8 Modeling Approaches for Common Design Situations ............ 6-6
6.3 Recommendations................................................................................ 6-10
6.3.1 Improved Collaboration Between Structural and
Geotechnical Engineers .......................................................... 6-10
6.3.2 Checklist of Information That Should be Provided to
Geotechnical Engineers .......................................................... 6-11
6.3.3 Checklist of Information Needed by Structural Engineers ..... 6-13
6.3.4 Sample Format for Soil Spring Characterization .................... 6-16
6.3.5 Guidance on Modeling Approaches for Typical Foundation
Situations ............................................................................... 6-17
6.3.6 Example Applications of Simplified Soil-Structure
Interaction ............................................................................... 6-17
7. Example Applications ......................................................... 7-1

7.1 Overview of Example Applications ....................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Summary of Results from Prior Studies ................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Building Selection .................................................................... 7-3
7.1.3 Modeling Approaches ............................................................... 7-4
7.2 Sherman Oaks Building ......................................................................... 7-6
7.2.1 Site Characterization ................................................................. 7-7
7.2.2 Ground Motion Recordings ...................................................... 7-8
7.2.3 Foundation Conditions............................................................ 7-11
7.2.4 Development of Foundation Springs and Dashpots................ 7-12
7.2.5 Analysis Results...................................................................... 7-19
7.3 Sherman Oaks Building Parametric Studies ........................................ 7-27
7.3.1 Parametric Study Results ........................................................ 7-29
7.3.2 Parametric Study Observations............................................... 7-35
7.4 Walnut Creek Building ........................................................................ 7-36
7.4.1 Site Characterization ............................................................... 7-37
7.4.2 Ground Motion Recordings .................................................... 7-38
7.4.3 Foundation Conditions............................................................ 7-41
7.4.4 Development of Foundation Springs and Dashpots................ 7-42
7.4.5 Analysis Results...................................................................... 7-47
7.5 Example Applications Summary and Conclusions .............................. 7-51
vi Table of Contents GCR 12-917-21

8. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................ 8-1
8.1 When is Consideration of Soil-Structure Interaction Important? .......... 8-1
8.2 Summary of Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Procedures ................ 8-3
8.2.1 Developing Springs and Dashpots ............................................ 8-3
8.2.2 Modifying Ground Motions due to Kinematic
Interaction ................................................................................. 8-7
8.2.3 Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction in Response History
Analyses .................................................................................... 8-7
8.3 Future Research Needs .......................................................................... 8-8
8.3.1 Theme 1: Expansion of Current Studies ................................... 8-8
8.3.2 Theme 2: Research to Address Knowledge Gaps ..................... 8-9
Appendix A: Sherman Oaks Building Model Development ...................... A-1

A.1 Baseline Model Development ............................................................... A-1
A.2 Baseline Model Calibration .................................................................. A-4
Appendix B: Sherman Oaks Building Stick Model Development ............... B-1

B.1 Stick Model Development .................................................................... B-1
B.1.1 Moment Frame Stick Model Development.............................. B-1
B.1.2 Moment Frame Stick Model Calibration ................................. B-6
B.2 Additional Moment Frame Stick Model Comparisons to Full-
Building Model Results ...................................................................... B-14
B.3 Moment Frame Stick Model Comparisons for Different Foundation
Configurations .................................................................................... B-27
B.4 Shear Wall Stick Model Development ............................................... B-32
B.5 Shear Wall Stick Model Comparisons ................................................ B-33
B.6 Moment Frame Stick Model and Shear Wall Stick Model
Comparisons ....................................................................................... B-50
Appendix C: Walnut Creek Building Model Development ....................... C-1

C.1 Walnut Creek Building Model Development ....................................... C-1
C.2 Model Validation .................................................................................. C-7
Symbols ................................................................................... D-1
References ............................................................................... E-1
Project Participants .................................................................... F-1
GCR 12-917-21 Table of Contents vii

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Schematic illustration of a direct analysis of soil-structure interaction

using continuum modeling by finite elements ....................................... 1-4
Figure 1-2 Schematic illustration of a substructure approach to analysis of soil-
structure interaction using either: (i) rigid foundation; or (ii) flexible
foundation assumptions ......................................................................... 1-6
Figure 2-1 Schematic illustration of deflections caused by force applied to:
(a) fixed-base structure; and (b) structure with vertical, horizontal,
and rotational flexibility at its base ........................................................ 2-2
~
Figure 2-2 Plot of period lengthening ratio ( T T ) and foundation damping (f )
versus structure-to-soil-stiffness ratio for square foundations (L = B)
and varying ratios of h/B ........................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-3 Illustration of inertial SSI effects on spectral acceleration (base shear)
associated with period lengthening and change in damping .................. 2-7
Figure 2-4 Plot of dynamic stiffness modifiers and damping ratios versus
dimensionless frequency, for rectangular footings resting on the surface
of a homogeneous half-space, with zero hysteretic damping, and
=0.33: (a) geometry; (b) x-direction; and (c) y-direction .................. 2-15
dimensionless frequency, for square footings embedded in a
homogeneous half-space, with zero hysteretic damping, and
=0.33: (a) geometry; and (b) x-direction (y-direction similar) .......... 2-16
Figure 2-6 Plot of dynamic stiffness modifiers and radiation damping ratios versus
dimensionless frequency comparing uniform half-space and non-uniform
profiles in which G varies with depth: (a) translation for circular
foundations; and (b) rotation for square foundations ........................... 2-19
Figure 2-7 Effect of flexible foundation elements on rotational stiffness (krr) and
rotational radiation damping ratio (rr) for circular foundations
supporting a rigid core and flexible perimeter walls............................ 2-20
Figure 2-8 Vertical spring distribution used to reproduce total rotational stiffness
kyy. A comparable geometry can be shown in the y-z plane (using
foundation dimension 2B) to reproduce kxx ......................................... 2-22
Figure 2-9 Schematic illustration showing replacement of piles with equivalent
springs for translational and vertical (rotational) impedance............... 2-25
GCR 12-917-21 List of Figures ix

dimensionless frequency, for single piles in a homogeneous half-space,
with =0.4 and p/s =1.3: (a) geometric parameters; (b) lateral
loading; and (c) vertical loading .......................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-11 Plots of pile group efficiency factors and damping ratios versus
dimensionless frequency for square pile groups for: (a) lateral loading at
head of pile group under zero cap rotation; (b) moment at head of pile
group, introducing rocking under zero cap translation; and (c) vertical
loading at head of pile group ............................................................... 2-31
Figure 2-12 Comparison between the impedance (stiffness and damping ratio)
of a 3x3 pile group and the impedance of a footing with equivalent
dimensions for: (a) lateral loading at head of pile group; and (b)
moment at head of pile group, introducing rocking ............................. 2-32
Figure 2-13 Schematic illustration of a Beam-on-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation
(BNWF) model: (a) hypothesized foundation-superstructure system;
(b) idealized model; and (c) variable vertical stiffness distribution..... 2-36
Figure 2-14 Cyclic response of OpenSees BNWF springs subjected to a sinusoidal
displacement: (a) q–z spring (Qzsimple2 material model); (b) p–x spring
(Pxsimple1 material model); and (c) t–x spring (Txsimple1 material
model) .................................................................................................. 2-38
Figure 2-15 Comparison of BNWF model response to centrifuge tests for a
medium aspect ratio building on dense sand, with Dr = 80%, and
FSv = 2.3: (a) moment-rotation; (b) settlement-rotation; (c) shear-
sliding; and (d) settlement-sliding ....................................................... 2-40
Figure 2-16 Conceptual illustration of a macro-element contact interface model
(CIM) ................................................................................................... 2-41
Figure 2-17 Contact interface model (CIM): (a) definition of critical contact
length; and (b) tracking of foundation position relative to soil
pressures .............................................................................................. 2-42
Figure 2-18 Comparison of CIM simulation to centrifuge tests for a medium aspect
ratio building on dense sand, with Dr = 80%, and FSv = 2.6: (a) moment-
rotation; (b) settlement-rotation; (c) shear-sliding; and (d) settlement-
sliding .................................................................................................. 2-43
Figure 3-1 Illustration of foundation subjected to inclined shear waves:
(a) schematic geometry; (b) transfer functions between FIM and free-
field motion for wave passage using a semi-empirical model for
incoherent waves ................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Illustration of foundation subjected to vertically incident shear waves:
(a) schematic geometry; and (b) transfer functions for horizontal
foundation translation and rocking ........................................................ 3-6
x List of Figures GCR 12-917-21

Figure 3-3 Illustration of base-slab averaging and embedment effects at CSMIP
Station 23497 during the 1987 Whittier Earthquake: (a) foundation and
sensor location plan; (b) acceleration time histories; and (c) observed
and model-based transfer functions ....................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-4 Illustration of differences between transfer functions and ratios of
response spectra using data from CSMIP Station 23497 during the 1987
Whittier Earthquake: (a) E-W response spectra recorded at the site; and
(b) ratio of response spectra from recordings compared to model
prediction for RRS and transfer function, Hu ....................................... 3-10
Figure 4-1 Schematic illustration of the shape of the design response spectrum
in the NEHRP Recommended Provisions .............................................. 4-2
Figure 4-2 Plot of relationship between period lengthening and foundation
damping ................................................................................................. 4-4
Figure 4-3 Schematic illustration of a pushover analysis and development of a
pushover curve for a structure with a flexible base ............................... 4-5
Figure 4-4 Schematic illustration of procedures used to combine pushover curves
with design response spectra to estimate seismic displacements in a
structure ................................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-5 Ratios of response spectra (uFIM/ug) for base slab averaging using the
semi-empirical formulation adopted in FEMA-440............................... 4-8
Figure 4-6 Schematic illustration of a tall building with subterranean levels:
(a) complete system; (b) simplified model for service-level
earthquake intensity; and (c) simplified foundation model for
maximum considered earthquake intensity .......................................... 4-10
Figure 5-1 Non-normalized impedance values from experimental data compared
with theoretical predictions for a nuclear containment structure at
Hualien, Taiwan for translational (top) and rotational (bottom)
modes ..................................................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-2 Normalized impedance values from experimental data compared with
theoretical predictions for the Garner Valley site for: (a) translational;
and (b) rotational modes ........................................................................ 5-4
Figure 5-3 Comparison of damping ratio of vibrating blocks of various sizes
predicted using impedance models for a half-space and measured
from free-vibration tests on laboratory-scale models ............................ 5-8
Figure 6-1 Illustration of an embedded building configuration with a basement
surrounded by soil and a level grade on all sides ................................... 6-7
Figure 6-2 Modeling approaches for embedded foundations .................................. 6-7
Figure 6-3 Illustration of a partially embedded building configuration with
unbalanced loading ................................................................................ 6-9
Figure 6-4 Illustration of a building configuration without a basement ................ 6-10
GCR 12-917-21 List of Figures xi

Figure 6-5 Sample format for presentation of force-displacement relationships
for soil springs ..................................................................................... 6-16
Figure 7-1 Exterior elevations of two case-study buildings: (a) 13-story Sherman
Oaks building; and (b) 10-story Walnut Creek building ....................... 7-3
Figure 7-2 Modeling approaches considered in example applications .................... 7-4
Figure 7-3 Plan view of the Sherman Oaks site showing locations of borehole
and geophysical logs used for site characterization ............................... 7-7
Figure 7-4 Subsurface characteristics of the Sherman Oaks site: (a) shear wave
velocity profile; and (b) material profile................................................ 7-8
Figure 7-5 Sherman Oaks building (CSMIP Station No. 24322) instrument
locations ................................................................................................. 7-9
Figure 7-6 Response spectra for recorded foundation input motion, uFIM, and
inferred free-field motion, ug, at the Sherman Oaks building, 1994
Northridge earthquake ......................................................................... 7-10
Figure 7-7 Computed variation of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak
ground velocity (PGV) with depth at the Sherman Oaks site, 1994
Northridge earthquake ......................................................................... 7-11
Figure 7-8 Sherman Oaks building foundation plan, based on construction
drawings provided by CSMIP.............................................................. 7-12
Figure 7-9 Vertical spring and dashpot intensities distributed over the footprint
of the Sherman Oaks building. Solid lines represent tributary area
boundaries and solid circles represent column nodes .......................... 7-16
Figure 7-10 Plan view, transverse section, and longitudinal section of foundation
nodes for the Sherman Oaks building, and calculation of associated
spring stiffnesses .................................................................................. 7-18
Figure 7-11 Comparison of displacements, drifts, story shears, and accelerations
between Model MB, MB.1 and MB.2 for the Sherman Oaks
building ................................................................................................ 7-22
between Model MB and Model 4 for the Sherman Oaks building ...... 7-23
Figure 7-16 Comparison of peak displacements, drift ratios, and story shears
from all model configurations, in the transverse direction .................. 7-27
Figure 7-17 Elevation an idealized stick model of the Sherman Oaks building...... 7-29
xii List of Figures GCR 12-917-21

Figure 7-18 Comparison of maximum displacement envelopes in each direction
for foundation Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB, for each structural system
variant (MF, SW, SW1, SW2, and SW3) ............................................ 7-31
Figure 7-19 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes in each direction
Figure 7-20 Comparison of maximum story shear envelopes in each direction
Figure 7-21 Comparison of peak floor acceleration envelopes in each direction
Figure 7-22 Walnut Creek building typical floor plan, based on construction
Figure 7-23 Walnut Creek building longitudinal elevation, based on
construction drawings provided by CSMIP ......................................... 7-37
Figure 7-24 Plan view of the Walnut Creek site showing borehole and refraction
survey locations used for site characterization .................................... 7-38
Figure 7-25 Subsurface characteristics of the Walnut Creek site: (a) shear wave
velocity profile; and (b) material profile .............................................. 7-39
Figure 7-26 CSMIP Station No. 58364: Walnut Creek 10-Story commercial
building, sensor location sketch ........................................................... 7-40
Figure 7-27 Response spectra for foundation input motion, uFIM, and free-field
motion, ug, at the Sherman Oaks building, 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake ............................................................................................ 7-41
Figure 7-28 Walnut Creek building foundation plan, based on construction
Figure 7-29 Vertical spring and dashpot intensities distributed over the mat
foundation of the Walnut Creek building ............................................ 7-46
Figure 7-30 Schematic illustration of Model 4 (bathtub); Model 2 (fixed at
foundation level); and Model 1 (fixed at ground surface) for the
Walnut Creek building ......................................................................... 7-48
Figure 7-31 Comparison of roof acceleration and displacement histories for
Model 4 (taken as Baseline Model MB), Model 1, and Model 2 for
the Walnut Creek building ................................................................... 7-49
Figure 7-32 Comparison of maximum relative displacement, peak floor
acceleration, maximum story drift, and story shear coefficients for
Model 4 (taken as Baseline Model MB), Model 1, and Model 2 for
the Walnut Creek building ................................................................... 7-50
GCR 12-917-21 List of Figures xiii

Figure 7-33 Comparison of modeled versus recorded roof displacement histories
due to base rotation of the Walnut Creek building .............................. 7-50
Figure A-1 Renderings of the Sherman Oaks building, including cut-away views
showing structural details in the first story, basement, and foundation
regions................................................................................................... A-2
Figure A-2 Schematic illustration of elastic springs connecting the framing lines
of the superstructure with the wall lines in the basement levels ........... A-2
Figure A-3 Comparison of modeled versus recorded displacement histories for
Model MB in the 1994 Northridge earthquake: roof level (a) and (b);
8th floor (c) and (d); ground level (e) and (f); foundation level (g) and
(h); and roof displacement due to base rocking (i) and (j) .................... A-6
Figure A-4 Comparison of modeled versus recorded peak displacements and
accelerations for Model MB in the 1994 Northridge earthquake ......... A-7
Model MB in the 1992 Landers earthquake: roof level (a) and (b);
(h); and roof displacement due to base rocking (i) and (j) .................... A-8
accelerations for Model MB in the 1992 Landers earthquake .............. A-9
Model MB in the 1987 Whittier earthquake: roof level (a) and (b);
(h); and roof displacement due to base rocking (i) and (j) .................. A-10
accelerations for Model MB in the 1987 Whittier earthquake............ A-11
Figure B-1 Plan view of the full-building model of the Sherman Oaks
building. ................................................................................................ B-2
Figure B-2 Longitudinal elevation (X-direction) of the full-building model of
the Sherman Oaks building. .................................................................. B-2
Figure B-3 Transverse elevation (Y-direction) of the full-building model of
the Sherman Oaks building. .................................................................. B-3
Figure B-4 Elevation the idealized stick model of the Sherman Oaks building ..... B-4
Figure B-5 Idealized force-displacement curve for the Sherman Oaks building .... B-4
Figure B-6 Shear wall and basement level node definitions, constraints, and
connectivity for the Sherman Oaks stick model ................................... B-5
Figure B-7 Comparison of roof displacement histories for the moment frame
stick model and the full-building Model MB ....................................... B-9
Figure B-8 Comparison of maximum displacement envelopes for the moment
frame stick Model MB and the full-building Model MB ................... B-10
xiv List of Figures GCR 12-917-21

Figure B-9 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes for the moment
frame stick Model MB and the full-building Model MB.................... B-11
Figure B-10 Comparison of maximum story shear envelopes for the moment
Figure B-11 Comparison of peak floor acceleration envelopes for the moment
frame stick Model 1 and the full-building Model 1 ............................ B-15
Figure B-14 Comparison of normalized story shear envelopes for the moment
frame stick Model 4a and the full-building Model 4a ........................ B-23
frame stick Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB .................................................. B-28
GCR 12-917-21 List of Figures xv

Figure B-28 Comparison of maximum displacement envelopes for the SW stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-34
Figure B-29 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes for the SW stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-35
Figure B-30 Comparison of normalized story shear envelopes for the SW stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-36
Figure B-31 Comparison of peak floor acceleration envelopes for the SW stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-37
Figure B-32 Comparison of maximum displacement envelopes for the SW1 stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-38
Figure B-33 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes for the SW1 stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-39
Figure B-34 Comparison of normalized story shear envelopes for the SW1 stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-40
Figure B-35 Comparison of peak floor acceleration envelopes for the SW1 stick
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-41
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-42
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-43
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-44
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-45
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-46
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-47
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-48
Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB..................................................................... B-49
frame stick Model MB and the shear wall stick Model MB ............... B-50
xvi List of Figures GCR 12-917-21

Figure C-1 Renderings of the Walnut Creek building, including cut-away views
showing: (a) the exterior facade; (b) structural framing; (c) core wall
elevations; (d) core wall layout; (e) details of the precast cladding
system; and (f) interior layout of a typical floor level .......................... C-2
Figure C-2 Plan views of the Walnut Creek building shear wall core:
(a) foundation level; (b) first floor; and (c) typical floor level ............. C-3
Figure C-3 Illustrations of the Walnut Creek building OpenSees model:
(a) three-dimensional model; and (b) simplified two-dimensional
model .................................................................................................... C-6
Figure C-4 Horizontal and vertical spring and dashpot locations for the Walnut
Creek building model............................................................................ C-7
Figure C-5 Comparison of relative roof displacement histories from recorded
data, two-dimensional (2D) model results, and three-dimensional
(3D) model results for the Walnut Creek building ............................... C-7
Figure C-6 5%-damped elastic response spectra of recorded motions for the
Walnut Creek building in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake ................ C-8
Figure C-7 Comparison of modeled versus recorded acceleration and relative
displacement histories for the Walnut Creek building in the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake: roof level (a) and (b); 8th floor (c) and (d); 3rd floor
(e) and (f); and ground floor (g) and (h) ............................................... C-9
Figure C-8 Comparison of modeled versus recorded maximum relative
displacements and peak accelerations for the Walnut Creek building
in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake ................................................... C-10
Figure C-9 Maximum story drift profile for the Walnut Creek building model
subjected to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake ................................... C-10
Figure C-10 High-pass filtering of vertical motions at base level showing the
effects of corner frequency on displacement and rocking histories .... C-11
GCR 12-917-21 List of Figures xvii

List of Tables
Table 2-1 Values of Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus Reduction for
Various Site Classes and Shaking Amplitudes .................................... 2-10
Table 2-2a Elastic Solutions for Static Stiffness of Rigid Footings at the
Ground Surface .................................................................................... 2-11
Table 2-2b Embedment Correction Factors for Static Stiffness of Rigid
Footings ............................................................................................... 2-12
Table 2-3a Dynamic Stiffness Modifiers and Radiation Damping Ratios for
Rigid Footings...................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-3b Dynamic Stiffness Modifiers and Radiation Damping Ratios for
Embedded Footings ............................................................................. 2-14
Table 2-4a Equations for Static Stiffness of Single Piles ...................................... 2-29
Table 2-4b Equations for Dynamic Stiffness Modifiers and Damping Ratios for
Single Piles .......................................................................................... 2-30
Table 5-1 Summary of Field Forced-Vibration Tests Used to Evaluate
Foundation Impedance Functions .......................................................... 5-2
Table 5-2 Summary of Laboratory-Scale Tests of Dynamic Response of
Footings ................................................................................................. 5-7
Table 7-1 Summary of Modeling Approaches Considered in Example
Applications ........................................................................................... 7-6
Table 7-2 Summary of Earthquake Events Recorded at the Sherman Oaks
Building ............................................................................................... 7-10
Table 7-3 Summary of Effective Profile Depths and Average Effective Profile
Velocities for the Sherman Oaks Building .......................................... 7-13
Table 7-4 Calculation of Shallow Foundation Stiffness and Damping
Parameters for the Sherman Oaks Building ......................................... 7-15
Table 7-5 Calculation of Pile Stiffness and Damping Parameters for the
Sherman Oaks Building ....................................................................... 7-17
Table 7-6 Comparison of Fundamental Periods for Alternative Foundation
Modeling Configurations for the Sherman Oaks Building .................. 7-20
Table 7-7 Summary of Sherman Oaks Building Parametric Stick Models .......... 7-28
Table 7-8 Comparison of Results for Moment Frame, Core Shear Wall, and
Perimeter Shear Wall Stick Models and Alternative Foundation
Modeling Configurations ..................................................................... 7-30
GCR 12-917-21 List of Tables xix

Table 7-9 Summary of Earthquake Events Recorded at the Walnut Creek
Building ............................................................................................... 7-39
Table 7-10 Summary of Effective Profile Depths and Average Effective Profile
Velocities for the Walnut Creek Building ........................................... 7-43
Table 7-11 Comparison of Average Effective Profile Velocities with and
without Correction for Structural Overburden Weight ........................ 7-43
Table 7-12 Evaluation of Soil-to-Foundation Stiffness Ratios for Flexible Mat
Foundation below Shear Wall Core in the Walnut Creek Building ..... 7-44
Table 7-13 Calculation of Mat Foundation Stiffness and Damping Parameters
for the Walnut Creek Building............................................................. 7-45
Modeling Configurations for the Walnut Creek Building ................... 7-48
Table A-1 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Periods for the Sherman
Oaks Building ....................................................................................... A-5
Table B-1 Axial and Rotational Properties of the Moment Frame Stick Model ... B-7
Table B-2 Lateral Force-Deformation Properties of the Moment Frame Stick
Model .................................................................................................... B-7
Table B-3 Masses in the Moment Frame Stick Model .......................................... B-8
Table B-4 Comparison of Modeled Periods for the Moment Frame Stick
Model and the Full-Building Model MB .............................................. B-8
Model and the Full-Building Model for each Alternative
Foundation Configuration ................................................................... B-14
Table B-6 Comparison of Modeled Periods for the Shear Wall Stick Models
for each Alternative Foundation Configuration .................................. B-32
xx List of Tables GCR 12-917-21

Chapter 1
Introduction
The response of a structure to earthquake shaking is affected by interactions between

three linked systems: the structure, the foundation, and the soil underlying and
surrounding the foundation (FEMA, 2009). Soil-structure interaction analysis
evaluates the collective response of these systems to a specified ground motion. The
terms Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) and Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction
(SFSI) are both used to describe this effect in the literature. In this report, the
foundation is considered part of the structure, and the term SSI has been adopted.
This report presents a synthesis of the body of knowledge contained in SSI literature,
which has been distilled into a concise narrative and harmonized under a consistent
set of variables and units. Specific techniques are described by which SSI
phenomena can be simulated in engineering practice, and recommendations for
modeling seismic soil-structure interaction effects on building structures are
provided.
1.1 Background and Objectives
Problems associated with the practical application of SSI for building structures are
rooted in a poor understanding of fundamental SSI principles. Soil-structure
interaction topics are generally not taught in graduate earthquake engineering
courses, so most engineers attempting SSI in practice must learn the subject on their
own. Unfortunately, practice is hindered by a literature that is often difficult to
understand, and codes and standards that contain limited guidance. Most articles rely
heavily on the use of wave equations in several dimensions and complex arithmetic
to formulate solutions and express results. Moreover, nomenclature is often
inconsistent, and practical examples of SSI applications are sparse. This gives rise to
the present situation in which soil-structure interaction is seldom applied, and when it
is, modeling protocols vary widely and are not always well conceived.
Although the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures has provided guidance for consideration of SSI
effects in forced-based procedures for several decades, these procedures have not
found significant use in practice. Practical application of SSI gained momentum
following publication of FEMA 440, Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analysis
Procedures (FEMA, 2005), which provided the design community with procedures
for incorporating the effects of soil-structure interaction in nonlinear static pushover-
type analyses. These procedures were eventually adopted into ASCE/SEI 41-06,
GCR 12-917-21 1: Introduction 1-1

Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2007). Because they were
developed for nonlinear static analysis, however, they were not directly applicable to
response history analysis, which requires more careful consideration of specific
components of soil-foundation interaction and the manner by which input ground
motions should be applied to structural models.
In 2009, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated the Task
Order 69221 Project entitled “Improved Procedures for Characterizing and Modeling
Soil-Structure Interaction for Performance-Based Seismic Engineering.” The
purpose of this project was to develop consensus guidance for implementing soil-
structure interaction in response history analyses, such that input ground motions
accurately reflect the input at the base of structures, and that structural models
include elements that account for the geotechnical and foundation conditions
associated with the building under consideration. Work also included an extensive
review of available research on soil-structure interaction, evaluation of existing SSI
guidelines for static-type analyses, and development of recommendations for
improvement where necessary.
This report is intended to provide background for addressing three fundamental

questions that arise when contemplating the use of SSI in the seismic analysis of
building structures:
1. When is the use of foundation springs and dashpots important, and which
structural response parameters are affected?
2. Under what conditions is consideration of the differences between foundation

input motions and free-field ground motions important?
3. What field and laboratory investigations are necessary to develop foundation

springs and dashpots for SSI analysis?
Once the decision to implement SSI has been made, a basic level of understanding of
the physical phenomenon and a practical analysis methodology for simulating its
effects are needed. This report describes the principal components of SSI in a clear
and concise way, and consistent nomenclature is used throughout. Explicit
computational tools that can be used in engineering practice are provided, and
applications of SSI to force-based analysis procedures, pushover (displacement-
based) procedures, and response history analysis procedures are described.
As part of the work, soil-structure interaction procedures were applied to detailed

example applications that investigate the influence of various SSI components on
response history analysis results. The resulting recommendations are drawn from
these studies, along with the results of other studies in recent literature.
1-2 1: Introduction GCR 12-917-21

Implementation of SSI within a design setting requires close collaboration between
structural and geotechnical engineers. Neither discipline alone is likely to have
sufficient knowledge of structural, foundation, and site considerations necessary to
properly complete a meaningful analysis considering SSI effects. As such, the
intended audience for this work is expected to be structural and geotechnical
engineers experienced in earthquake engineering with a working knowledge of
structural and soil dynamics principles. The mathematical complexities are kept to a
minimum to make the content as accessible as possible to non-experts in structural
dynamics and the mathematics of wave propagation. Detailed guidance on
communication between structural and geotechnical engineers is also provided.
1.2 Overview of Soil-Structure Interaction
A seismic soil-structure interaction analysis evaluates the collective response of the

structure, the foundation, and the geologic media underlying and surrounding the
foundation, to a specified free-field ground motion. The term free-field refers to
motions that are not affected by structural vibrations or the scattering of waves at,
and around, the foundation. SSI effects are absent for the theoretical condition of a
rigid foundation supported on rigid soil. Accordingly, SSI accounts for the
difference between the actual response of the structure and the response of the
theoretical, rigid base condition.
In Part 2 of FEMA P-750, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New

Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA, 2009), SSI effects are categorized as inertial
interaction effects, kinematic interaction effects, and soil-foundation flexibility
effects. The terms kinematic and inertial interaction were introduced in 1975 by
Robert Whitman (Kausel, 2010). In the context of engineering analysis and design,
these effects are related to:
 Foundation stiffness and damping. Inertia developed in a vibrating structure
gives rise to base shear, moment, and torsion. These forces generate
displacements and rotations at the soil-foundation interface. These displacements
and rotations are only possible because of flexibility in the soil-foundation
system, which significantly contributes to overall structural flexibility (and
increases the building period). Moreover, these displacements give rise to energy
dissipation via radiation damping and hysteretic soil damping, which can
significantly affect overall system damping. Since these effects are rooted in
structural inertia, they are referred to as inertial interaction effects.
 Variations between foundation input motions and free-field ground motions.
Foundation input motions and free-field motions can differ because of: (i)
kinematic interaction, in which stiff foundation elements placed at or below the
ground surface cause foundation motions to deviate from free-field motions due
to base slab averaging, wave scattering, and embedment effects in the absence of

structure and foundation inertia; and (ii) relative displacements and rotations
between the foundation and the free-field associated with structure and
foundation inertia.
 Foundation Deformations. Flexural, axial, and shear deformations of structural
foundation elements occur as a result of forces and displacements applied by the
superstructure and the soil medium. These represent the seismic demands for
which foundation components should be designed, and they could be significant,
especially for flexible foundations such as rafts and piles.
Methods that can be used to evaluate the above effects can be categorized as direct
and substructure approaches. In a direct analysis, the soil and structure are included
within the same model and analyzed as a complete system. In a substructure
approach, the SSI problem is partitioned into distinct parts that are combined to
formulate the complete solution.
Direct Analysis. As schematically depicted in Figure 1-1, the soil is often

represented as a continuum (e.g., finite elements) along with foundation and
structural elements, transmitting boundaries at the limits of the soil mesh, and
interface elements at the edges of the foundation.
Figure 1-1 Schematic illustration of a direct analysis of soil-structure interaction

using continuum modeling by finite elements.
Evaluation of site response using wave propagation analysis through the soil is
important to this approach. Such analyses are most often performed using an
equivalent linear representation of soil properties in finite element, finite difference,

or boundary element numerical formulations (Wolf, 1985; Lysmer et al., 1999).
Direct analyses can address all of the SSI effects described above, but incorporation
of kinematic interaction is challenging because it requires specification of spatially
variable input motions in three dimensions.
Because direct solution of the SSI problem is difficult from a computational
standpoint, especially when the system is geometrically complex or contains
significant nonlinearities in the soil or structural materials, it is rarely used in
practice.
Substructure Approach. Proper consideration of SSI effects in a substructure
approach requires: (i) an evaluation of free-field soil motions and corresponding soil
material properties; (ii) an evaluation of transfer functions to convert free-field
motions to foundation input motions; (iii) incorporation of springs and dashpots (or
more complex nonlinear elements) to represent the stiffness and damping at the soil-
foundation interface; and (iv) a response analysis of the combined structure-
spring/dashpot system with the foundation input motion applied.
The superposition inherent in a substructure approach requires an assumption of
linear soil and structure behavior, although in practice this requirement is often
followed only in an equivalent-linear sense. As depicted in Figure 1-2, the steps in a
substructure approach are as follows:
 Specification of a foundation input motion (FIM), which is the motion of the
base-slab that accounts for the stiffness and geometry of the foundation. Because
inertia is dealt with separately, the FIM applies for the theoretical condition of
the base-slab and structure having no mass (Figure 1-2b). This motion generally
differs from the free-field motion, involves both translational and rotational
components, and represents the seismic demand applied to the foundation and
structural system. The variation between free-field and foundation input motions
is expressed by a transfer function that represents the ratio of foundation/free-
field motion in the frequency domain. Since inertial effects are neglected, the
transfer function represents the effects of kinematic interaction only.
An essential first step in defining the FIM is to evaluate the free-field response of
the site, which is the spatial and temporal variation of ground motion in the
absence of the structure and foundation. This task requires that the earthquake
input motion in the free field is known, either at a specific point (e.g., ground
surface, rock-outcrop) or in the form of incident waves (e.g., oblique shear
waves) propagating up from a reference depth.
Having established the free-field motion, wave-propagation analyses are
performed to estimate the foundation input motion along the planned soil-
foundation interface, as depicted in Figure 1-2d. Equivalent linear properties for

the soil (e.g., shear modulus, material damping) can be evaluated as part of this
analysis.
(rotational and vertical

kz springs in parallel)
Figure 1-2 Schematic illustration of a substructure approach to analysis of soil-

structure interaction using either: (i) rigid foundation; or (ii) flexible
foundation assumptions.
 The stiffness and damping characteristics of the soil-foundation interaction are

characterized using relatively simple impedance function models or a series of
distributed springs and dashpots. Impedance functions represent the frequency-
dependent stiffness and damping characteristics of soil-foundation interaction.
Use of impedance function models for rigid foundations is illustrated in Figure
1-2c(i). Use of a series of distributed springs and dashpots acting around the
foundation is illustrated in Figure 1-2c(ii). The latter case of distributed springs
and dashpots is needed when foundation elements are non-rigid, or when internal

demands (e.g., moments, shears, deformations) are required outcomes of the
analysis.
 The superstructure is modeled above the foundation and the system is excited
through the foundation by displacing the ends of the springs and dashpots using
the rocking and translational components of the FIM. It should be noted that
FIM varies with depth. In the case of the distributed spring and dashpot model,
differential ground displacements should be applied over the depth of
embedment. This application of spatially variable displacements introduces a
rotational component to the FIM, which is why a rotational component does not
specifically appear in Figure 1-2d(ii).
1.3 Report Organization and Content
This report summarizes the body of knowledge on soil-structure interaction, and

provides specific recommendations for modeling seismic soil-structure interaction
effects on building structures in engineering practice.
Chapter 2 describes inertial SSI effects, beginning with the behavior of simple
structure-soil systems to provide insight into the conditions for which inertial SSI
effects are most critical. Also presented are detailed procedures for computing
foundation stiffness and damping, both for idealized conditions in classical solutions
and for more realistic conditions that may include flexible foundation systems, non-
uniform soil, and material nonlinearity. Both shallow foundation systems (e.g.,
footings, mats) and deep foundation systems (e.g., piles) are discussed.
Chapter 3 describes the manner by which transfer functions can be computed for
various foundation configurations considering kinematic interaction effects, and how
transfer function amplitudes can be used to modify response spectral ordinates.
Chapter 4 describes how SSI procedures described in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 are
implemented in seismic design provisions contained in currently available consensus
standards and design guidelines.
Chapter 5 describes the relatively limited number of SSI experiments and case
history studies available in the literature, and summarizes some of the lessons learned
from that work. Efforts to calibrate or verify analysis procedures against laboratory
data or field performance data are noted, where applicable.
Chapter 6 presents a summary of the state-of-practice in SSI analysis, along with

recommendations for improving communications between geotechnical and
structural engineers.
Chapter 7 provides detailed example applications of the substructure analysis

approach and procedures described in this report. Studies are performed on two

buildings with available earthquake recordings and varying degrees of SSI modeling
sophistication. Recommendations for implementing SSI in response history analyses
are provided, taking into consideration the capabilities of currently available
structural engineering software.
Chapter 8 answers three fundamental questions that arise when contemplating the use
of SSI in the seismic analysis of a building structure, summarizes SSI analysis
procedures that would be followed on typical project in a step-by-step manner, and
provides short-term and long-term research needs.
Appendices A, B, and C provide additional, more detailed information on the

development of, and results from, analytical models used in the example applications
of Chapter 7.
A list of Symbols defining key notation, and a list of References cited from the body
of SSI literature are provided at the end of this report.

Chapter 2
Inertial Interaction
Inertial interaction refers to displacements and rotations at the foundation level of a

structure that result from inertia-driven forces such as base shear and moment. This
chapter describes inertial soil-structure interaction effects. Inertial displacements and
rotations can be a significant source of flexibility and energy dissipation in the soil-
structure system.
Section 2.1 discusses system behavior and highlights some of the principal effects of
inertial interaction and the conditions for which its effects are significant. The
methods focus on single degree-of-freedom systems, but they can be extrapolated to
multi-degree-of-freedom systems with a dominant first mode. Section 2.2 provides a
relatively detailed description of how foundation springs and dashpots can be
specified to represent the flexibility and damping associated with soil-foundation
interaction in translational and rotational vibration modes for shallow foundations
(e.g., footings and mats). Section 2.3 provides corresponding solutions for the
stiffness and damping characteristics of deep foundations (e.g., piles and drilled
shafts). Some of the procedures given in Section 2.2 are coded into available
computer programs such as DYNA6 (Western Engineering, 2011). This program can
also be used for pile foundations, although the results are relatively approximate.
Section 2.4 presents several models that can be used to evaluate shallow foundation
response for conditions involving nonlinear material behavior or geometric
nonlinearities (i.e. gapping).
2.1 Soil-Structure System Behavior
A rigid base refers to soil supports with infinite stiffness (i.e., without soil springs).
A rigid foundation refers to foundation elements with infinite stiffness (i.e., not
deformable). A fixed base refers to a combination of a rigid foundation elements on
a rigid base. A flexible base analysis considers the compliance (i.e., deformability) of
both the foundation elements and the soil.
Consider a single degree-of-freedom structure with stiffness, k, and mass, m, resting

on a fixed base, as depicted in Figure 2-1a. A static force, F, causes deflection, :
F
 (2-1)
k
From structural dynamics, the undamped natural vibration frequency, , and period,
T, of the structure are given by Clough and Penzien (1993) as:
GCR 12-917-21 2: Inertial Interaction 2-1

k 2 m
 , T  2 (2-2)
m  k
By substituting Equation 2-1 into Equation 2-2, an expression for the square of
period is obtained as:
m 2 m
T 2   2    2 
2
(2-3)
F  F
(a) (b)
Figure 2-1 Schematic illustration of deflections caused by force applied to: (a)
fixed-base structure; and (b) structure with vertical, horizontal, and
rotational flexibility at its base.
Now consider the same structure with vertical, horizontal, and rotational springs at its
base, representing the effects of soil flexibility against a rigid foundation, as depicted
in Figure 2-1b. The vertical spring stiffness in the z direction is denoted kz, the
horizontal spring stiffness in the x direction is denoted kx, and the rotational spring is
denoted kyy, representing rotation in the x-z plane (about the y-y axis). If a force, F, is
applied to the mass in the x direction, the structure deflects, as it does in the fixed-
base system, but the base shear (F) deflects the horizontal spring by uf , and the base
moment ( F  h) deflects the rotational spring by . Accordingly, the total deflection
with respect to the free-field at the top of the structure,  , is:
F
   u f    h
k
(2-4)
F F  F h 
    h
k k x  k yy 
If Equation 2-4 is substituted into Equation 2-3, an expression for flexible base
period, T , is obtained as:
2-2 2: Inertial Interaction GCR 12-917-21


2 m  1 1 h2 
T 2   2    2  m   
2
 k k x k yy 
(2-5)
F  
Combining expressions in Equation 2-5 and Equation 2-2 results in:
 1 1 h2 
2
 T  k
    m      (2-6)
T  m  k k x k yy 
Equation 2-6 simplifies into a classical period lengthening expression (Veletsos and
Meek, 1974):
T k kh 2
 1  (2-7)
T k x k yy
Equation 2-7 can be applied to multi-degree-of-freedom structures by taking the

height, h, as the height of the center of mass for the first-mode shape. This is
commonly referred to as the effective modal height, which is approximately
two-thirds of the overall structure height, and taken as 0.7 times the height in
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 2010). In such cases, period lengthening applies to only the
first-mode period.
In previous work by Veletsos and Nair (1975) and Bielak (1975), it has been shown
that the dimensionless parameters controlling period lengthening are:
h h B m
, , , , and  (2-8)
V sT B L  s 4 BLh
where h is the structure height (or height to the center of mass of the first mode
shape), B and L refer to the half-width and half-length of the foundation,m is the
mass (or effective modal mass),s is the soil mass density, and  is the Poisson’s
ratio of the soil. Previous work was applicable to circular foundations, and has been
adapted here for rectangular shapes considering the ratio, B/L.
To the extent that h/T quantifies the stiffness of the superstructure, the term h/(VsT) in
Equation 2-8 represents the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio. The term h/T has units of
velocity, and will be larger for stiff lateral force resisting systems, such as shear
walls, and smaller for flexible systems, such as moment frames. The shear wave
velocity, Vs, is closely related to soil shear modulus, G, computed as:
Vs  G /  s (2-9)
For typical building structures on soil and weathered rock sites, h/(VsT) is less than
0.1 for moment frame structures, and between approximately 0.1 and 0.5 for shear
wall and braced frame structures (Stewart et al., 1999b). Period lengthening

increases markedly with structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, which is the most important
parameter controlling inertial SSI effects.
The structure-height-to-foundation-width ratio, h/B, and foundation-width-to-length

ratio, B/L, in Equation 2-8 are aspect ratios describing the geometry of the soil-
structure system. The mass ratio, m/s4BLh, is the ratio of structure mass to the mass
of soil in a volume extending to a depth equal to the structure height, h, below the
foundation. In Equation 2-7, it can be seen that period lengthening has no
fundamental dependence on mass. The mass ratio term was introduced so that period
lengthening could be related to easily recognizable characteristics such as structural
first mode period, T, and soil shear wave velocity, Vs, rather than structural stiffness,
k, and soil shear modulus, G. The effect of mass ratio is modest, and it is commonly
taken as 0.15 (Veletsos and Meek, 1974). The Poisson’s ratio of the soil, , affects
the stiffness and damping characteristics of the foundation.
Using models for the stiffness of rectangular foundations (of half-width, B; half-
length, L; and L ≥ B) resting on a homogeneous isotropic half-space with shear wave
velocity, Vs, period lengthening ratios can be calculated with the results shown in
Figure 2-2a, which is plotted for the special case of a square footing (L = B).
~
Figure 2-2 Plot of period lengthening ratio ( T T ) and foundation damping (f )
versus structure-to-soil-stiffness ratio for square foundations (L = B)
and varying ratios of h/B. In this plot,  = 0.33, B/L = 1.0, hysteretic
soil damping s = 0, mass ratio= 0.15, and exponent n = 2.

All other factors being equal, period lengthening increases with the structure-height-
to-foundation-width ratio, h/B, due to increased overturning moment and foundation
rotation, . This implies that inertial SSI effects would be more significant in tall
buildings, but this is not the case. Tall buildings typically have low h/(VsT) ratios,
which is more important for controlling inertial SSI effects. Hence period
lengthening in tall buildings is near unity (i.e., little or no period lengthening). For a
fixed ratio of h/B, period lengthening is observed to decrease modestly with
foundation-width-to-length ratio, B/L, due to increased foundation size (and therefore
stiffness) normal to the direction of loading.
In addition to period lengthening, system behavior is also affected by damping

associated with soil-foundation interaction, referred to as foundation damping, f.
This damping is composed of two parts: (1) contributions from soil hysteresis
(hysteretic damping); and (2) radiation of energy away, in the form of stress waves,
from the foundation (radiation damping). Foundation damping is a direct contributor
to the flexible-base system damping, 0:
1
0   f  i (2-10)
T T 
n
where i is the structural damping in the superstructure assuming a fixed base, which
is generally taken as 5% for typical structural systems. More refined estimates of i
are possible based on structural system type and configuration, as described in
PEER/ATC-72-1, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and
Analysis of Tall Buildings (ATC, 2010). Observations from case studies (Stewart et
al., 1999b) have shown that f ranges from approximately 0% to 25%. The exponent,
n, on the period lengthening term in Equation 2-10 is taken as 3 for linearly viscous
structural damping, and 2 otherwise (e.g., for hysteretic damping) (Givens, 2013).
Analytical models for foundation damping have been presented by Veletsos and Nair
(1975), Bielak (1975 and 1976), Roesset (1980), Wolf (1985), Aviles and Perez-
Rocha (1996), Maravas et al. (2007), and Givens (2013), among others. The classical
solution of Veletsos and Nair accounts for the frequency dependence of foundation
damping terms. It assumes structural damping to be purely viscous, and applies for a
circular foundation resting on a half-space. The equation for f provided by Veletsos
and others is complex-valued (i.e., composed of real plus imaginary values), which
complicates the interpretation of its physical meaning. Bielak’s work utilizes the
same conditions except that the foundation is assumed to be a cylinder penetrating a
half-space to an embedment depth, D, and the resulting expressions are real-valued.
The value of exponent n in Equation 2-10 is taken as 3 for the Veletsos and Bielak
solutions because structural damping is assumed to be viscous.

The procedure given by Wolf (1985) neglects the frequency dependence of
foundation stiffness terms, and assumes foundation radiation damping to be linearly
viscous (i.e., constant dashpot coefficients for translation and rotation, cx and cyy), and
applies for a circular foundation resting on a half-space. Considering frequency
dependence, the form of Wolf’s damping expression (similar to Roesset, 1980) can
be re-written as:
 T T  n s  1 
1 1
f  s  x   yy (2-11a)
 T T  ns
  TT  nx
 T T  n yy
  x yy
Where s is soil hysteretic damping, x and yy are damping ratios related to radiation
damping from translational and rotational modes (described further in Section 2.2),
and Tx and Tyy are fictitious vibration periods, calculated as if the only source of the
vibration was foundation translation or rotation, as follows:
m mh 2
T x  2 T yy  2 (2-11b)
kx k yy
Exponents ns, nx, and nyy depend on the specific form of damping associated with the
respective components of the foundation damping, and all other terms are as
previously defined. However, because none of these terms would be expected to be
linearly viscous, it is recommended to take these exponents as 2 (Givens, 2013).
Note that for n = ns, the period lengthening terms in front of the i term in Equation
2-10 and the s term in Equation 2-11a are weight factors that together sum to unity.
Accordingly, Equation 2-11a can be viewed as a “mixing rule” for damping in
different vibration modes and sources. Because Wolf’s results were produced
neglecting the frequency dependence of foundation stiffness terms, Equation 2-11a
can provide more accurate results if those effects are included in the period
lengthening calculation.
Soil hysteretic damping, s, is strain-dependent, and can typically be evaluated from
information in the literature. Classical models are summarized in Kramer (1996).
More contemporary empirical models by Darendeli (2001) and Menq (2003) account
for overburden pressure and shear strain in a consistent manner across multiple soil
types.
The Wolf solution for foundation damping in Equation 2-11a, along with the classical
Veletsos, Bielak, and Roesset solutions, neglect contributions from terms involving
the product of two damping ratios. Maravas et al. (2007) presents exact solutions in
which those terms are included. Like Wolf, Maravas et al. (2007) utilizes hysteretic
damping so exponents n = 2, and if terms involving the product of two damping
ratios are excluded, Equation 2-11a is recovered.

As was the case for period lengthening shown in Figure 2-2a, Figure 2-2b shows that
foundation damping f increases strongly with structure-to-soil-stiffness ratio,
h/(VsT). In Figure 2-2b, all exponents were taken as 2. Damping f decreases with
increasing values of h/B, indicating that lateral movements of the foundation (which
dominate at low h/B ratios) dissipate energy into soil more efficiently than foundation
rocking (which dominates at high h/B ratios). Radiation damping terms (x and yy)
are reduced significantly when a stiff bedrock layer is encountered at moderate or
shallow depths, as described further in Section 2.2.2.
Analysis procedures for T / T and f similar to those described above have been
validated relative to observations from instrumented buildings shaken by earthquakes
(Stewart et al., 1999a; 1999b). These studies show that the single most important
parameter controlling the significance of inertial interaction is h/(VsT), and that
inertial SSI effects are generally negligible for h/(VsT) < 0.1, which occurs in flexible
structures (e.g., moment frame buildings) located on competent soil or rock.
Conversely, inertial SSI effects tend to be significant for stiff structures, such as shear
wall or braced frame buildings, located on softer soils.
The effect of inertial SSI on the base shear of a building is illustrated in Figure 2-3.
Because base shear for elastic response is commonly computed based on pseudo-
spectral acceleration in the first mode, the figure depicts the variation in pseudo-
spectral acceleration versus period in both linear and log scales. The pseudo-spectral
acceleration for a flexible-base structure, Sa , is obtained by entering the spectrum
drawn for effective damping ratio, 0, at the corresponding elongated period, T .
Figure 2-3 Illustration of inertial SSI effects on spectral acceleration (base shear)
associated with period lengthening and change in damping.
The effect of SSI on base shear is related to the slope of the spectrum. Base shear
tends to increase when the slope is positive and decrease when the slope is negative.

For the common case of buildings with relatively long periods on the descending
portion of the spectrum, use of Sa (flexible base) in lieu of Sa (fixed base) typically
results in reduced base shear demand. Conversely, inertial SSI can increase the base
shear in relatively short-period structures.
The period at which the spectral peak occurs, referred to as the predominant period of
ground motion, Tp, is generally controlled by the tectonic regime, earthquake
magnitude, and site-source distance (Rathje et al., 2004), and will only match the site
period in certain cases involving large impedance contrasts due to soil layering. In
the absence of unusual site effects, typical values of Tp range from approximately 0.2
to 0.5 seconds for shallow crustal earthquakes in tectonically active regions, such as
California.
2.2 Equations for Shallow Foundation Stiffness and Damping
2.2.1 Models for Rigid Foundations and Uniform Soils
Impedance functions represent the frequency-dependent stiffness and damping

characteristics of soil-foundation interaction. Classical solutions for the complex-
valued impedance function can be written as (Luco and Westman, 1971; Veletsos and
Wei, 1971):
k j  k j  i c j (2-12a)
where k j denotes the complex-valued impedance function; j is an index denoting

modes of translational displacement or rotation; kj and cj denote the frequency-
dependent foundation stiffness and dashpot coefficients, respectively, for mode j; and
 is the circular frequency (rad/s). A dashpot with coefficient cj represents the
effects of damping associated with soil-foundation interaction. An alternative form
for Equation 2-12a is:

k j  k j 1  2i  j  (2-12b)
where:
c j
j  (defined for kj > 0) (2-13a)
2k j
An advantage of the expression for j in terms of cj in Equation 2-13a is that, at

resonance of the SSI system, j can be interpreted as a fraction of critical damping in
the classical sense (Clough and Penzien, 1993). A drawback of Equation 2-13a is
that, as kj approaches zero, j goes to infinity.
The imaginary part of the complex impedance represents a phase difference between
harmonic excitation and response at a given frequency. The phase difference, j,
between force and (lagged) displacement is (Clough and Penzien 1993; Wolf 1985):

 j  tan 1  2 j  (2-13b)
Angle j is also known as a loss angle. For example, if j is 10%, peak harmonic
displacement will lag peak force by 0.197 radians (11.3 degrees). When j goes to
infinity, j is bounded by /2.
Many impedance function solutions are available for rigid circular or rectangular
foundations located on the surface of, or embedded within, a uniform, elastic, or
visco-elastic half-space. In the case of a rigid rectangular foundation resting on the
surface of a half-space with shear wave velocity Vs, Pais and Kausel (1988), Gazetas
(1991), and Mylonakis et al. (2006) review impedance solutions in the literature and
present equations for computing the stiffness and damping terms in Equation 2-12.
Solutions describe translational stiffness and damping along axes x, y, and z, and
rotational stiffness and damping about those axes (denoted xx, yy, and zz). Stiffness
is denoted kj, and is a function of foundation dimensions, soil shear modulus, G,
Poisson’s ratio of the soil, , dynamic stiffness modifiers, j, and embedment
modifiers, j:
k j  K j   j  j (2-14a)
K j  GB m f  B L ,  ,  j  f  B L , a 0  (2-14b)
 j  f  B L , D B , d w B , Aw B L  (2-14c)
where Kj is the static foundation stiffness at zero frequency for mode j, and m = 1 for
translation, and m = 3 for rotation. Shear modulus, G, should reflect the effects of
modulus reduction with increasing shear strain amplitude. ASCE/SEI 7-10,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2010), and
FEMA P-750, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and
Other Structures (FEMA, 2009), provide the information presented in Table 2-1 for
adjusting the shear modulus and shear wave velocity for large strain levels.
Maximum (or small strain) shear modulus, G0, can be calculated from Equation 2-9
as G 0  V s2  s , where Vs is based on geophysical measurements in the field, and s is
the soil mass density. An average effective value of Vs is generally computed across
an effective profile depth, zp, as described in Section 2.2.2. Dynamic stiffness
modifiers, j, are related to the dimensionless frequency a0:
B
a0  (2-15)
Vs
which has the physical interpretation of being the ratio of B to approximately one-
sixth of the seismic wavelength for frequency . This frequency parameter is
essentially unique for half-space conditions, but may not be so in presence of a stiff

stratum at shallow depth (Anoyatis and Mylonakis, 2012). For time domain analysis,
a single frequency  is usually selected for the purpose of evaluating foundation
spring and dashpot coefficients that depend on a0. This can be taken as the frequency
corresponding to the period associated with the dominant response of the structure.
In most cases, this will be the first-mode, flexible-base period.
Table 2-1 Values of Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus

Reduction for Various Site Classes and Shaking
Amplitudes (ASCE, 2010; FEMA, 2009)
Reduction Factor (Vs) Reduction Factor (G/G0)
SDS/2.5 (1) SDS/2.5 (1)
Site Class ≤0.1 0.4 ≥0.8 ≤0.1 0.4 ≥0.8
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
B 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.90
C 0.97 0.87 0.77 0.95 0.75 0.60
D 0.95 0.71 0.32 0.90 0.50 0.10
E 0.77 0.22 (2) 0.60 0.05 (2)
F (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Notes: (1) SDS is the short period spectral response acceleration parameter defined in
ASCE/SEI 7-10; use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of SDS/2.5.
(2) Value should be evaluated from site-specific analysis.
Table 2-2a lists expressions for static foundation stiffness, Kj, for three translational
and three rotational degrees of freedom for a rigid rectangular footing located at the
ground surface. These equations are similar for Pais and Kausel (1988), Gazetas
(1991), and Mylonakis et al. (2006).
Embedment of foundations below the ground surface increases static foundation

stiffness. Factors, j, to increase Kj for the effects of embedment are provided in
Table 2-2b. The Pais and Kausel (1988) equations are most often used in practice.
The equations by Gazetas (1991) and Mylonakis et al. (2006) are more general,
accounting for embedment effects resulting from gapping between the soil and
foundation side walls.
Equations for dynamic stiffness modifiers, j, and radiation damping ratios, j, for
rigid footings located at the ground surface are provided in Table 2-3a. Dynamic
stiffness modifiers and radiation damping ratios for embedded footings are provided
in Table 2-3b.

Table 2-2a Elastic Solutions for Static Stiffness of Rigid Footings at the Ground Surface
Degree of Freedom Pais and Kausel (1988) Gazetas (1991); Mylonakis et al. (2006)
0.75
GB   L  0.75  2GL  B 
Translation along z-axis K z , sur  3.1   1.6 K z , sur  0.73  1.54   
1    B   1   L 
0.85
GB   L  0.65 L  2GL  B 
Translation along y-axis K y , sur  6.8    0.8    1.6  K y , sur   2  2.5   
2    B  B  2    L  
GB   L  0.65  0.2  B
Translation along x-axis K x , sur  6.8    2.4  K x , sur  K y , sur  GL 1  
2    B   0.75   L
2.45 10
 L    B 
Torsion about z-axis K zz , sur  GB 3  4.25    4.06  K zz , sur  GJ t0.75  4  111   
 B    L  
2.4 0.15
GB 3  L  G 0.75   L  
Rocking about y-axis K yy , sur  3.73    0.27  K yy , sur   I y  3   
1   B  1    B  
0.25
GB 3  L  G 0.75 L   B 
Rocking about x-axis K xx , sur  3.2  B   0.8 K xx , sur   I x   
1      1  B
 2.4  0.5  L  
  
Notes: Axes should be oriented such that L ≥ B.

area moment of inertia of soil-foundation contact,
polar moment of inertia of soil-foundation

i denotes which axis to take the surface around.
contact surface.

G = shear modulus (reduced for large strain effects, e.g., Table 2-1).
GCR 12-917-21 Inertial Interaction 2-11

Table 2-2b Embedment Correction Factors for Static Stiffness of Rigid Footings
Degree of Freedom Pais and Kausel (1988) Gazetas (1991); Mylonakis et al. (2006)
0.8 2/3
  0.25  D    D  B    Aw  
Translation along z-axis  z  1.0   0.25      z  1  1  1.3   1  0.2   
  L / B  B    21B  L     4 BL  
0.8 0.4
  1.34  D    D  w w z A  
Translation along y-axis  y  1.0   0.33      y  1  0.15  1  0.52  2  
  1  L / B  B    B   BL  
Translation along x-axis x  y Same equation as for y, but Aw term changes for B  L
0.9 0.9
  1.32  D    B  d w 
Torsion about z-axis  zz  1  1.3      zz  1  1.4 1  
  L / B  B    L  B 
 0.6 1.9 0.6

D  1.6  D  2  dw   dw   B 
Rocking about y-axis  yy  1.0       yy  1  0.92    1.5   D  L 
 B    B  
 B  0.35   L / B  4       
2 0.2
 D  1.6  D   dw  dw dw  B
Rocking about x-axis  xx  1.0       xx  1  1.26 1  
 B  0.35  L / B  B   B  B  D  L 
Notes: dw = height of effective side wall contact (may be less

than total foundation height)
zw = depth to centroid of effective sidewall contact
Aw = sidewall-solid contact area, for constant
effective contact height, dw, along perimeter.
For each degree of freedom, calculate Kemb = ηKsur
D
Coupling Terms: K emb, rx    K emb, x
3
D
K emb , ry    K emb, y
3
2-12 Inertial Interaction GCR 12-917-21

Table 2-3a Dynamic Stiffness Modifiers and Radiation Damping Ratios for Rigid Footings (adapted from Pais and Kausel, 1988)
Degree of Freedom Surface Stiffness Modifiers Radiation Damping
 0.2  2 
  0.4  a0 
  L/B   4  L / B    a 
Translation along z-axis  z  1.0    z    0 
 10  2    K z , sur / GB    2 z 
   a 0
  1  3  L / B  1  
 4 L / B   a 0 
Translation along y-axis  y  1.0 y    
  K y , sur / GB    2 y 
 4 L / B   a 
Translation along x-axis  x  1.0 x    0 
  K x , sur / GB    2 x 
   
  3

2 

 0.33  0.03 L / B  1 a 0     4 / 3  L / B    L / B  a 02  a 
Torsion about z-axis  zz  1.0     zz    0 
 0.8     1.4     2 zz 
  a 2  3 2
 0   K zz , sur / GB   0.7
  a 
0 
  1  0.33  L / B  1    
  1  3  L / B  1   
   
   3

2
 0.55a 02    4 / 3 L / B  a 0   a0 
Rocking about y-axis  yy  1.0     yy    
 1.4  2    K yy , sur   1.8    2 yy 
2 
  0.6  3
  a0   3     a 0  
   L / B      GB   1  1.75  L / B  1   
   
   
2
  0.55  0.01 L / B  1 a 0 
   4 / 3 L / B  a 02  a 
Rocking about x-axis  xx  1.0     xx    0 
  0.4  2    0.4     2 xx 
3 2
  2.4  3
  a0    K xx , sur / GB   2.2  3
  a 
0 
 
   L / B      L / B    

Notes: Orient axes such that L ≥ B.
Soil hysteretic damping, s, is additive to foundation radiation damping, j.
a 0 B / V s ;   2 1    / (1  2 ) ;   2.5

Table 2-3b Dynamic Stiffness Modifiers and Radiation Damping Ratios for Embedded Footings (adapted from Pais and Kausel, 1988)
Degree of Freedom Radiation Damping
 4   L / B    D / B 1  L / B     a 
Translation along z-axis  z    0 
  K z ,emb / GB    2 z 
 4  L / B   D / B 1   L / B     a 
 0
Translation along y-axis  y    
   K y,emb / GB    2 y 

 4  L / B   D / B   L / B     a 
Translation along x-axis  x    0 
  K x,emb / GB    2 x 
 
 3 2 3

  4 / 3 3  L / B  D / B     L / B   D / B   3  L / B   D / B     D / B    L / B   ( L / B)  a 02   a 
  
Torsion about z-axis  zz  0 
 K
 zz ,emb    1.4     2 zz 
  3 
 0.7
  a 02  
  GB   1  3  L / B  1  

 3 3 2 3 3
 L  3  D  D  L D  D  L  L 
  4 / 3               3         a 02  4   L     D  
  B B  B  B  B        a 
 B   B   B   3 B  B  0
Rocking about y-axis  yy      
  K yy , emb    1.8  2
  K yy , emb   
 2 yy 

  3    3 

 GB  
 1  1.75  L / B  1   a 0 
   GB 
   
 3 3
 D   D  3  L  D   D  L   L 
  4 / 3            3         a 02  4   L  1  D  
  B  B   B  B       
 B   B   B   3 B  B    a0 
Rocking about x-axis  xx      
  K xx , emb   1.8  2
  K xx , emb    2 xx 
 3      a 0   3 
  GB   1  1.75  L / B  1   GB  
  
Notes: Soil hysteretic damping, s, is additive to foundation radiation damping, j.
; from Table 2-3a
a 0 B / V s ;   2 1    / (1  2 ) ;   2.5

The frequency dependence of quantities provided in Table 2-3a reflects the effect of
condensation of infinite degrees of freedom in soil having mass and associated
dynamic effects (i.e., hidden mass effect). Frequency dependence would disappear
for massless soil, as a0 would become zero (because V s  G max    in
Equation 2-15), causing j = 1, and j = 0. Dynamic stiffness modifiers provided in
Table 2-3b are insensitive to embedment, so values for embedded foundations are the
same as values given in Table 2-3a for footings located at the ground surface (i.e.,
j, emb = j, sur).
Figure 2-4 shows the variation in dynamic stiffness modifiers versus frequency for
rigid footings located at the ground surface. In the case of translational stiffness,
dynamic stiffness modifiers (x, y) are essentially unity, regardless of frequency or
foundation aspect ratio. For rotational stiffness, however, dynamic stiffness
modifiers for rocking (xx, yy) degrade markedly with frequency, but are relatively
insensitive to aspect ratio.
a 0  B / V s a 0  B / V s
Figure 2-4 Plot of dynamic stiffness modifiers and damping ratios versus dimensionless frequency,
for rectangular footings resting on the surface of a homogeneous half-space, with zero
hysteretic damping, and =0.33: (a) geometry; (b) x-direction; and (c) y-direction.
Because soil hysteretic damping, s, is taken as zero, Figure 2-4 also shows the
variation in radiation damping ratios for translation (x, y) and rotation (xx, yy)
versus frequency. Translational radiation damping is only modestly affected by the
direction of shaking or the aspect ratio of the foundation. The modest increase of
translational damping with aspect ratio is a result of the increased foundation size
(i.e., larger wave source).

In contrast, rotational radiation damping is strongly sensitive to the direction of
shaking and the aspect ratio of the foundation. Rotational damping is largely
controlled by vertical cyclic displacements at the edges of the foundation (without
separation between soil and footing). As aspect ratio increases, the ends of the
foundation are located further apart, and energy radiating into the soil from each end
of the foundation experiences less destructive interference, thus increasing damping.
At low frequencies (a0 < 1 to 2), damping from rotation is generally smaller than
damping from translation, although the trend reverses as frequency increases and
foundations become relatively oblong. The practical significance of this effect is that
translational deformation modes in the foundation, while often relatively unimportant
from the perspective of overall structural system flexibility, can be the dominant
source of foundation damping. When used to calculate the dashpot coefficient, cj, the
j term should be taken as the sum of radiation damping for the appropriate vibration
mode (from Equation 2-13a and Table 2-3) and soil hysteretic damping, s, provided
by a geotechnical engineer.
Figure 2-5 shows the variation in dynamic stiffness modifiers and radiation damping
ratios versus frequency for embedded foundations. In equations provided by Pais and
Kausel (1988), dynamic stiffness modifiers are unaffected by embedment, and this
a 0  B / V s
dimensionless frequency, for square footings embedded in a
homogeneous half-space, with zero hysteretic damping, and
=0.33: (a) geometry; and (b) x-direction (y-direction similar).

result is shown in Figure 2-5b. Apsel and Luco (1987), however, found a somewhat
different result, indicating some sensitivity to embedment. Apsel and Luco observed
a more rapid decay of stiffness with frequency for embedded foundations, which is
not reflected in the figure.
The elasto-dynamic analyses upon which Figure 2-5 is based assume perfect contact
between soil and basement walls. Accordingly, the solutions indicate much higher
damping levels than those for shallow foundations (Gazetas, 1991). These damping
levels may not be reliable when gaps form between foundations and the adjacent soil,
which reduces the potential for radiation damping from basement walls. In studies
performed by Stewart et al. (1999b), buildings shaken by earthquakes generally do
not exhibit damping levels consistent with such models. As a result, the impedance
of embedded foundations can be conservatively estimated from the equations for
static stiffness in Table 2-2a and adjusted by dynamic stiffness modifiers for surface
foundations from Table 2-3b.
2.2.2 Effect of Non-Uniform Soil Profiles
In most cases, Vs profiles are evaluated away from foundations (i.e., in the free-field)
and reflect a variation of shear modulus with depth. Variation in soil shear modulus
with depth, and the presence of additional weight from a structure, complicates the
selection of an appropriate shear wave velocity in the calculation of static foundation
stiffnesses. To evaluate a single effective Vs value for use in computations, it is
necessary to: (1) correct Vs values measured in the free-field to account for
overburden pressures associated with the added weight of the structure; and (2)
calculate an average effective Vs value over an appropriate depth range.
Soil shear modulus, G0, is known to increase with mean effective confining stress,
 m , as follows:
n
 
G0  G a  m  (2-16)
 pa 
where Ga is the shear modulus at atmospheric pressure, m is the effective confining
stress, pa is taken as approximately 100 kPa, and n varies from approximately 0.5 for
granular soils (Hardin and Black, 1968; Marcuson and Wahls, 1972) to 1.0 for
cohesive soils with plasticity index (PI) greater than 6.5 (Yamada et al., 2008).
Recognizing that Vs is proportional to the square root of shear modulus, free-field
measurements of shear wave velocity (at depth) can be corrected to account for
overburden pressures due to the added weight of the structure as follows:
n/ 2
   (z )   v (z ) 
Vs , F (z )  Vs (z )  v  (2-17)
  v (z ) 

where Vs,F (z) is the overburden-corrected shear wave velocity at depth z, Vs (z)
denotes the shear wave velocity measured in the free-field at depth z,  v ( z ) is the
effective stress from the self-weight of the soil at depth z, and v (z) is the increment
of vertical stress due to the weight of the structure at depth z, which can be computed
using classical Boussinesq stress distribution theory (e.g., Fadum, 1948). The
overburden correction in Equation 2-17 is typically significant only at shallow depths
(i.e., 50% to 100% of the foundation dimension).
Using overburden-corrected values of shear wave velocity, an average effective

profile velocity must be calculated over an appropriate depth interval. The depth
interval necessary for computing an average effective profile velocity was
investigated by Stewart et al. (2003). By matching the static stiffnesses for a uniform
half-space to those for computed for a non-uniform profile using the solutions of
Wong and Luco (1985), this work determined that shear wave velocities should be
averaged over an effective profile depth, zp, below the foundation bearing level. The
profile depth is discretized into layers having thickness zi and velocity Vs,F (z)i.
Designated as Vs, avg, the average effective profile velocity should be calculated as the
ratio of the profile depth, zp, to the summation of shear wave travel time through each
depth interval (Equation 2-18a). The depth interval, zp, necessary for computing an
average effective profile velocity can be taken as the half-dimension of an equivalent
square foundation matching the area of the actual foundation, BeA , or the half-
dimension of an equivalent square foundation matching the moment of inertia of the
actual foundation, BeI , computed as follows:
zp
Vs , avg  (2-18a)
n  z 
  i
i 1
 Vs ,F (z ) i 
Horizontal  x and y  : z p  BeA , BeA  A 4  BL (2-18b)
Rocking ( xx) : z p  B eI , xx : B eI = 4 0.75 I x  4 B 3 L (2-18c)
Rocking ( yy ) : z p  B eI , yy : B eI = 4 0.75I y  4 BL3 (2-18d)
This approach can, in principle, be applied to effectively rigid foundation systems by

considering B and L as the half-dimensions of the entire foundation plan. This
requires consideration of foundation flexibility and connectivity of the discrete
elements comprising the foundation system. Guidance for non-rigid (i.e., flexible)
foundation elements is provided in Section 2.2.3.
When soil shear modulus increases with depth, some of the seismic energy radiating
from the foundation reflects upward towards the foundation, hence it is not “lost” as
occurs in a uniform half-space. Impedance solutions for this phenomenon are

available for circular foundations (vertical translation: Guzina and Pak, 1998;
horizontal translation and rotation, approximate cone solution: Gazetas, 1991) and
rectangular foundations (vertical translation, rocking: Vrettos, 1999) for different
types of heterogeneity.
Figure 2-6 shows a plot of dynamic stiffness modifiers and radiation damping ratios
comparing results for a uniform half-space and non-uniform profiles in which G
varies with depth, as shown. The effect on radiation damping is more pronounced in
rotation (Figure 2-6b) than in translation (Figure 2-6a). Also, the effect on the
rotational stiffness modifier, yy, for square foundations (Figure 2-6b) is modest.
Hence, the effect of variation in soil shear modulus with depth is most critical for
static stiffness and radiation damping associated with foundation rocking. Because
rocking is often an insignificant contributor to overall foundation damping, the
practical impact of soil non-homogeneity is primarily related to its effect on static
stiffness.
a 0  r / v s 0 a 0  B / v s 0
Figure 2-6 Plot of dynamic stiffness modifiers and radiation damping ratios
versus dimensionless frequency comparing uniform half-space and
non-uniform profiles in which G varies with depth: (a) translation for
circular foundations (from Gazetas, 1991); and (b) rotation for square
foundations (from Vrettos, 1999).
In the extreme case of a rigid material at depth in a soil profile, radiation damping
from body wave propagation disappears at frequencies lower than the fundamental
frequency of the soil column. While no geologic materials are actually rigid, this can

be of concern when the ratio of the shear wave velocity of the firm layer to that of the
soil exceeds approximately two. In such cases, the static stiffness of foundations is
increased (solutions available in Mylonakis et al., 2006).
2.2.3 Effect of Flexible Structural Foundation Elements
Classical impedance function solutions, such as those presented in Table 2-2 and
Table 2-3, strictly apply for rigid foundations. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, soil-
foundation interaction for rigid foundations can be represented by individual springs
for each foundation degree of freedom. Actual foundation slabs and basement walls,
however, are non-rigid structural elements. The few theoretical solutions that exist
apply to circular foundations supporting a rigid core (Iguchi and Luco, 1982),
flexible perimeter walls (Liou and Huang, 1994), or rigid concentric walls (Riggs and
Waas, 1985). Figure 2-7 shows the effect of flexible foundation elements on
rotational stiffness, krr, and rotational radiation damping ratio, rr, for the cases of a
circular foundation supporting a rigid core or flexible perimeter wall.
a 0  r f / V s a0
Figure 2-7 Effect of flexible foundation elements on rotational stiffness (krr) and
rotational radiation damping ratio (rr) for circular foundations supporting a
rigid core (Iguchi and Luco, 1982) and flexible perimeter walls (Liou and
Huang, 1994).
The flexibility of the foundation is represented by a relative soil-to-foundation

stiffness ratio,  , taken from plate theory as:

Gr f3
  (2-19)
E 3
ft f 12(1  )  
2
f
where rf is the foundation radius, tf is the foundation thickness, and Ef and f are the
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the foundation concrete. The case of  = 0
corresponds to a rigid foundation slab.
Liou and Huang (1994) showed that foundation flexibility does not significantly
affect translational stiffness and damping terms for the case of flexible perimeter
walls. For rotational stiffness and radiation damping, Figure 2-7 shows that
foundation flexibility effects are relatively modest for the case of flexible perimeter
walls, and most significant for the case of a rigid core.
Typical practice does not adjust the impedance function for non-rigid foundations as
shown in Figure 2-7. Instead, foundations springs are distributed across the extent of
the foundation, as illustrated in Figure 1-2c. Distributed springs allow the foundation
to deform in a natural manner given the loads imposed by the superstructure and the
spring reactions. For vertical springs, this can be accomplished by calculating the
vertical translational impedance, as described above, and normalizing it by the
foundation area to compute stiffness intensity, k zi (also known as coefficient of
subgrade reaction), with dimensions of force per cubic length:
kz
k zi  (2-20a)
4 BL
A dashpot intensity can be similarly calculated as:

cz
c zi  (2-20b)
4 BL
As illustrated in Figure 2-8, the stiffness of an individual vertical spring in the

interior portion of the foundation can be taken as the product of k zi and the spring’s
tributary area dA. If this approach were used across the entire length, the vertical
stiffness of the foundation would be reproduced, but the rotational stiffness would
generally be underestimated. This occurs because the vertical soil reaction is not
uniform, and tends to increase near the edges of the foundation. Using a similar
process with czi would overestimate radiation damping from rocking. This occurs
because translational vibration modes (including vertical translation) are much more
effective radiation damping sources than rocking modes.
To correct for underestimation of rotational stiffness, strips along the foundation edge
(of length ReL) are assigned stiffer springs. When combined with springs in the
interior, the total rotational stiffness of the foundation is reproduced. Harden and
Hutchinson (2009) present expressions for end length ratios and spring stiffness
increases as a function of L/B using static stiffnesses from Gazetas (1991).

Figure 2-8 Vertical spring distribution used to reproduce total rotational stiffness
kyy. A comparable geometry can be shown in the y-z plane (using
foundation dimension 2B) to reproduce kxx.
More generally, the increase in spring stiffness, Rk, can be calculated as a function of
foundation end length ratio, Re, as:
 3k yy 
 i 3   1  R e 
3
 z 
4 k BL
Rocking ( yy ) : R k , yy (2-21a)
1  1  R e 
3
 3k xx 
 i 3   1  R e 
3
 z
4k B L 
Rocking ( xx) : R k , xx (2-21b)
1  1  R e 
3
Equations 2-21 were derived by matching the moment produced by the springs for a
unit foundation rotation to the rotational stiffness kyy or kxx. In these equations, a
value of Re can be selected (typically in the range of 0.3 to 0.5), which then provides
a unique Rk. This correction for rotational stiffness, however, does not preserve the
original vertical stiffness kz. This is considered an acceptable approximation, in
general, because rocking is the more critical foundation vibration mode in most
structures.
To correct for overestimation of rotational damping, the relative stiffness intensities

and distribution are used (based on the stiffness factor Rk and end length ratio Re), but
dashpot intensities over the full length and width of the foundation are scaled down
by a factor, Rc, computed as:
3c yy
4c zi BL3
Rocking ( yy) : R c , yy 
   1  R 
(2-21c)
R k , yy 1  1  R e 
3 3
e

3c xx
4c zi B 3 L
Rocking ( xx) : R c , xx  (2-21d)

R k , xx 1  1  R e 
3
  1  R 
e
3
Use of the above procedures for modifying vertical spring impedances will reproduce
the theoretical rotational stiffness and damping through distributed vertical springs
and dashpots. While this allows foundation flexibility to be accounted for, in the
sense that foundation structural elements connected to springs and dashpots are non-
rigid, a question that remains is whether or not the rotational impedance computed
using a rigid foundation impedance function is an appropriate target for calibration.
For the case of a rigid core illustrated in Figure 2-7 it is not, but solutions for more
practical situations are not available.
In the horizontal direction, the use of a vertical distribution of horizontal springs

depends largely on whether the analysis is two-dimensional or three-dimensional, and
whether or not the foundation is embedded. Current recommendations are as
follows:
 For two-dimensional analysis of a foundation on the ground surface, the
horizontal spring from the impedance function is directly applied to the
foundation, as shown in Figure 2-8 (i.e., no distributed springs).
 For two-dimensional analysis of an embedded foundation, the component of
the embedded stiffness attributable to the base slab (i.e., the stiffness without
the embedment modifier, kx/x) can be applied to the spring at the base slab
level. Distributed springs are then positioned along the height of the
basement walls with a cumulative stiffness equal to kx (1–1/x).
 For three-dimensional analysis, springs are distributed in both horizontal
directions uniformly around the perimeter of the foundation. The sum of the
spring stiffnesses in a given direction should match the total stiffness from
the impedance function.
2.2.4 Limiting Spring Forces
Previous sections have discussed linear spring stiffness, but have not addressed
foundation capacity. Pushover procedures for SSI analysis typically utilize elastic-
perfectly-plastic force-deflection relationships for springs. Hence, limiting spring
forces (i.e., capacities) are needed for vertical and horizontal springs.
In the case of vertical springs, the capacity is the unfactored bearing capacity of the
foundation distributed over the tributary area of the spring (dA). Bearing capacity
should be calculated considering the foundation geometry, drained or undrained shear
strength parameters as appropriate, soil unit weight, and simultaneous presence of
both horizontal and vertical loads on the foundations. These concepts are discussed

at length in foundation engineering textbooks (e.g., Coduto, 1994; Salgado, 2008),
and are not reviewed here. Bearing capacity solutions provided by Soubra (1999) are
commonly used in the nuclear industry. Limiting spring forces should not be
calculated using allowable bearing pressures that have been derived based on long-
term foundation settlement limitations, nor should factors of safety be applied.
In the case of horizontal springs, the capacity of springs located at the level of a
footing or mat should reflect the unfactored sliding resistance at the slab-soil
interface. The capacity of springs along basement walls should reflect the unfactored
passive earth pressure.
Shear strength parameters used for computation of bearing capacity, sliding

resistance, and passive earth pressure should be selected with due consideration of
soil type, level of soil saturation, possible cyclic degradation effects, and the rapid
loading rate applied during earthquakes. Selection of appropriate strength parameters
is beyond the scope of this report, but good general guidelines can be found in soil
mechanics textbooks, and in SCEC (2002).
Limiting lateral and vertical capacities of foundations are usually not simultaneously
realizable. This is especially important in the presence of geometric nonlinearities
such as soil-foundation gapping, described further in Section 2.4.
2.3 Impedance of Vertical Pile Foundations
Buildings founded on soft soils may have pile-supported footings or mats, especially
when the foundation is not embedded (i.e., no basement levels). This section
discusses the effective stiffness and damping of pile-supported foundations. Only the
case of vertical piles is considered, as battered piles are seldom used in building
structures.
Impedance of single pile foundations in the translational and vertical modes of

vibration using elasto-dynamic solutions is covered. Rotational (or cross rotational-
translational) impedance of single piles is omitted because rotational stiffness is
typically derived from groups of piles supporting a footing or mat, which is based on
vertical response parameters.
The impedance of pile groups for lateral and rotational vibration modes using elasto-
dynamic solutions is also covered. Pile-to-pile interaction effects are considered and
the manner by which vertical responses of piles are combined to develop rotational
impedance is discussed. Pile stiffnesses from elasto-dynamic solutions are contrasted
with the discrete element modeling typically performed in practice.
An important consideration when piles are combined with shallow spread footings or
a mat foundation is whether or not lateral resistance is provided by the shallow
foundation elements in combination with the piles. Soil might be expected to settle

away from shallow foundation elements in cases involving clayey foundation soils
and end-bearing piles, particularly when there are surface fills at the site. In such
cases, lateral load resistance would derive solely from the piles and basement walls.
On the other hand, when soil settlement is not expected, a hybrid impedance model
can be used in which lateral load resistance is provided by both shallow and deep
foundation elements (e.g., in the case of sandy soils and friction piles).
2.3.1 Impedance of Single Piles
Springs and dashpots effectively replace a single pile in the numerical modeling of a
pile-supported foundation, as schematically illustrated in Figure 2-9. The impedance
of single piles, represented by k jp and c jp , can be described in the notation used for
shallow foundations (Equations 2-12 to 2-14a). The dynamic stiffness for a
particular vibration mode is denoted k jp , and the corresponding dashpot, representing
the effects of damping, is denoted c jp . Subscript j represents the vibration mode,
which is taken as x (horizontal) and z (vertical).
Figure 2-9 Schematic illustration showing replacement of piles with equivalent

springs for translational and vertical (rotational) impedance.
The dynamic stiffness of a single pile can be represented as the product of static
stiffness K jp and a dynamic modifier  jp :
k jp  K jp   p
j (2-22a)
where:
K jp   j E s d
 j   w pj  w sj  w bj  f  E p E s , L p d  (2-22b)
 jp  f  E p E s ,  p  s , w sj , , a 0p 
In Equation 2-22b, j is a dimensionless constant for vibration mode j; d is pile

diameter; Es and Ep are the Young’s moduli for soil and pile materials, respectively;
s and p are the mass densities for soil and pile materials, respectively;  is the

Poisson’s ratio of the soil; wpj, wsj, and wbj represent weight factors that together sum
to unity for pile, soil, and pile tip stiffness contributions, respectively, for vibration
mode j (details below); and a 0p is a dimensionless frequency for piles (Kaynia and
Kausel, 1982):
d
a 0p  (2-23)
Vs
Because a 0p uses pile diameter in lieu of foundation half-width B, it is typically more

than an order of magnitude smaller than a0 (Equation 2-15) under the same cyclic
frequency . A fundamental aspect of pile response to lateral head loading is that a
long pile does not deflect over its entire length, but only to a certain depth, termed the
active pile length, La (shown in Figure 2-10).
a 0p  d / V s a 0p  d / V s
dimensionless frequency, for single piles in a homogeneous half-space,
with =0.4 and p/s =1.3: (a) geometric parameters;
(b) lateral loading; and (c) vertical loading.
The active pile length is on the order of 10 to 20 pile diameters, depending on pile-
soil stiffness contrast, soil non-homogeneity, and fixity conditions at the pile head
(Randolph, 1981; Gazetas, 1991; Pender 1993; Syngros 2004; Karatzia and
Mylonakis 2012). Piles with lengths Lp > La essentially behave as infinitely long
beams, and the actual length does not affect flexural response. Active lengths tend to
be greater for dynamic loading than for static loading, due to the ability of elastic
waves to travel further down the pile than a static stress field.

Axially loaded piles tend to respond to much greater depths (in excess of 50 pile
diameters), and tip reaction is almost always mobilized. Accordingly, an axially-
loaded pile cannot usually be approximated by an infinite rod.
Expressions for active pile length for lateral deformations can be cast in the form:

 Ep 
La     d (2-24)
 Es 
where  and μ are dimensionless constants, and all other terms are as previously
defined. For fixed-head piles in homogeneous soil under static loading, Randolph
(1981) and Fleming et al. (1992) recommend  = 1.8 and μ = 0.25. For dynamic
loading, Gazetas (1991) recommends  = 2 and μ = 0.25. Based on a more accurate
set of finite-element analyses, Syngros (2004) recommends  = 2.4 and μ = 0.25. A
discussion about the differences in the various formulas for active length can be
found in Karatzia and Mylonakis (2012). Approximate values of active pile lengths,
La, are 10d to 20d for lateral loading, and the actual pile length, Lp, for axial loading.
Once an appropriate active length, La, is selected, an average effective profile

velocity between the ground surface and depth, La, can be computed. These
guidelines are approximate, and further research is needed to better define effective
values of Vs for use in the analysis of pile impedance. Small-strain shear modulus,
G0, is then evaluated from shear wave velocity, Vs, as G0   sVs2 (from Equation
2-9). Soil shear modulus, G, should be reduced relative to G0 for large strain effects
(e.g., Table 2-1). Young’s modulus for soil can then be related to shear modulus as:
E s  2 1   G (2-25)
As an alternative to the use of Table 2-1 for evaluating modulus reduction effects,
soil strains adjacent to a horizontally loaded pile can be evaluated as (Kagawa and
Kraft, 1981):
1    u  z 
  z  (2-26)
2.5d
where γ(z) denotes an average soil shear strain at depth z, and u(z) the corresponding
horizontal pile displacement. On the basis of this equation, a strain-compatible soil
shear modulus can be obtained through conventional modulus reduction curves (e.g.,
Darendeli, 2001;Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Weight factors in Equation 2-22b (wpj, wsj, and wbj) represent the relative
contributions of the pile structural stiffness, pile-soil interaction through side-load
transfer, and pile-soil interaction through toe resistance for vibration mode j. These
weight factors always sum to unity (i.e., wpj + wsj + wbj = 1.0), and are not required

for analysis of static stiffness. Individual weight factors are used, however, for
dynamic modifiers and damping coefficients, as described below.
Equations related to the static stiffness of single piles are provided in Table 2-4a.
The equations are used to determine dimensionless parameters j and weight factors
(wpj, wsj, and wbj). Note that the equations for j depend, in turn, on a series of
additional dimensionless parameters. For lateral vibration (j=x), the additional
variable is the dimensionless modulus of subgrade reaction, x, which is related to
Ep/Es as indicated in the table. For vertical vibration (j=z), the additional variables
are  and Lp (both related to Ep/Es), and the corresponding modulus, z. Equations
for dynamic stiffness modifiers (  jp terms) and damping ratios (  jp terms) for single
piles are provided in Table 2-4b.
Damping ratios reflect material damping in the pile and soil materials (p and s,
respectively) as well as radiation damping (rj terms). The dynamic stiffness
modifiers and radiation damping ratios for single piles obtained from these
expressions are plotted in Figure 2-10.
2.3.2 Impedance of Grouped Piles
When piles are used as part of a building foundation system, they are usually
configured in groups to support continuous mat foundations or discrete pile caps for
individual load-bearing elements. The impedance of a pile group cannot be
determined by simple addition of individual pile impedances because grouped piles
interact through the soil by “pushing” or “pulling” each other through waves emitted
from their periphery. This is called a group effect, and it can significantly affect the
impedance of a pile group as well as the distribution of head loads among individual
piles in the group. Group effects depend primarily on pile spacing, frequency, and
number of piles. They are more pronounced in the elastic range, and dynamic group
effects decrease in the presence of material nonlinearity.
The ratio of the pile group impedance in any oscillation mode, k Gj , to the sum of the
individual static pile impedances in the same oscillation mode, N piles  k Pj , static , is the
efficiency factor of the pile group (Kaynia and Kausel, 1982). Efficiency factors are
generally less than unity for low frequencies, but can increase significantly at higher
frequencies under low strain conditions. Negative efficiency factors are also
possible, which suggests a phase difference of over 90 degrees between oscillations
of a single pile and oscillations of the pile group at the same frequency. Note that
these factors strictly refer to dynamic compliance of the group and are different from
the familiar efficiency factors for group bearing capacities in foundation engineering.

Table 2-4a Equations for Static Stiffness of Single Piles
Degree of Freedom Surface Stiffness Modifiers Reference
1/ 4 Poulos and Davis (1980)

1 E  Scott (1981), Mylonakis (1995)
Translation along x-axis  x   1/ 4 x 3/ 4  p 
2  Es 
3/ 40 Dobry et al. (1982)
E 
 x  2 p  Syngros (2004)
 Es 
w px  1/ 4  Dobry et al. (1982)
 Mylonakis (1995)
w sx  3 / 4  Long pile ( L p / d  L active )
w bx  0  Mylonakis and Roumbas (2001)
1/ 2 1/ 2 Randolph and Wroth (1978)

   Ep  Ω  tanh( L p )
Translation along z-axis z  z    Scott (1981)
 2   Es  1  Ω tanh( L p )
1/ 2
2  Ep 
Ω   Mylonakis and Gatezas (1998),
2
  z  1    E s  Randolph (2003), Salgado (2008)
1 1

2  Lp 
 4  2  E 
L p   z   p   
    Es   d 
Blaney et al. (1975)
 z  0.6 ; L p / d  10, E p / E s  100  Roesset (1980)
Thomas (1980)
w pz  1   w sz  w bz 
2   L p    2  1     2 cosh  2 L p   1   2  sinh  2 L p 

w sz 
4 cosh 2   L p     tanh   L p   1   tanh   L p  
2
w bz 
2 cosh   L p  1   2  sinh   L p 

Table 2-4b Equations for Dynamic Stiffness Modifiers and Damping Ratios for Single Piles
Degree of Freedom Static Stiffness Modifier Reference
3   p / s  p 2
Translation along x-axis  xp  1   a o  Mylonakis and Roumbas (2001)
32 x  1  
    p /  s  p 2 1 p 1/ 2 
Translation along z-axis  zp  1  w sz   a o   a o   Mylonakis (2011)
 8 x   1   2 

Degree of Freedom Damping Ratio Reference
1 3 3 Dobry et al. (1982)

Translation along x-axis  xp   p   s   rx
4 4 4 Mylonakis and Roumbas (2001)
  p 3/ 4
 a o 
3
 rx   Gazetas and Dobry (1984a,b)
 2 x 1     x 
Translation along z-axis  zp  w pz  p   w sz  w pz   s   rz Mylonakis (2011)
1  1.2 
 a op   w bz 0.21a op 
3/ 4
 rz  p  sz
w Gazetas and Dobry (1984b)
 z  4 1    z 
Results for horizontal and rocking oscillations are provided in Figure 2-11 for pile
groups in square configurations computed using the solution by Mylonakis and
Gazetas (1999). Peaks and valleys observed in the plots are due to destructive and
constructive interference of the waves between piles, which tend to increase and
decrease in dynamic impedance, as first identified by Wolf and Von Arx (1978), and
explained by Kaynia and Kausel (1982), Nogami (1983), and Dobry and Gazetas
(1988).
The above effects tend to decrease with non-homogeneity and nonlinearity in the soil,
as the waves emitted from the periphery of the piles become less coherent (El-Naggar
and Novak, 1994 and 1995; Michaelides et al., 1998). At the low normalized
frequencies of interest in most practical problems ( a0p  0.4) , efficiency factors are
less than one and saturate as the number of piles, Npiles, increases. Hence, for large
piles groups, low-frequency efficiencies would not be significantly lower than those
shown for the 44 pile group in Figure 2-11. Efficiency factors above unity for the
rocking mode are due to the intrinsic out-of-phase movement of the piles located on
opposite sides of the rocking axis.

a 0p  d / V s a 0p  d / V s a 0p  d / V s
Figure 2-11 Plots of pile group efficiency factors and damping ratios versus dimensionless
frequency for square pile groups for: (a) lateral loading at head of pile group
under zero cap rotation; (b) moment at head of pile group, introducing rocking
under zero cap translation; and (c) vertical loading at head of pile group. Lateral
and rocking results are for Ep/Es = 1000, Lp/d = 20, p/s = 1.3,  =0.4, (pile
spacing)/d = 5, p = 0, and s = 0.05. Vertical resutls are for Ep/Es = 100, Lp/d =
15, p/s = 1.4,  = 0.4, (pile spacing)/d = 5, p = 0, and s = 0.05.
In Figure 2-12, the group impedance of a 33 pile group is compared to that of a
footing of equivalent dimensions. Results are presented relative to a common
normalized frequency using the conversion:
B
a 0  a 0P (2-27)
d
Results show that the effect of the piles is dramatic for rotational stiffness, increasing
kyy by factors up to 50 relative to a shallow footing alone. Translational stiffness is
also increased, but to a lesser degree. Interestingly, damping ratios are on the same
order of magnitude, with somewhat greater variation with frequency caused by pile-
to-pile interaction effects.

(a): Lateral Loading (b): Rocking
a 0  a 0p (B / d ) a 0  a 0p (B / d )
Figure 2-12 Comparison between the impedance (stiffness and damping ratio) of
a 3x3 pile group and the impedance of a footing with equivalent
dimensions for: (a) lateral loading at head of pile group; and (b)
moment at head of pile group, introducing rocking. Results are for
Lp/d = 20, p/s = 1.3,  =0.4, (pile spacing)/d = 5, p = 0, and
s = 0.05.
2.3.3 Discrete Element Methods (p-y and t-z Curves)
In engineering practice, piles are typically modeled using discrete element methods,
as prepared in common commercial computer programs such as APILE (Ensoft, Inc.
program for analysis of axial capacity of piles) and LPILE (Ensoft, Inc. program for
analysis of piles under lateral loads). In such programs, it is straightforward to
extract head load-deflection relationships from the analysis, which are often used in
lieu of elasto-dynamic solutions described above.
Unfortunately, the p-y (nonlinear lateral spring) and t-z (nonlinear vertical spring)
relations used in these programs were developed to represent large-deformation
response in static or cyclic loading, and they do not accurately capture stiffness or
damping. In fact, many spring formulations have an initial stiffness that is infinite
(i.e., the backbone curve is vertical at the origin). When the pile-soil system is not
expected to yield, the elasto-dynamic solutions presented above provide a superior

representation of stiffness and damping. Research is needed to develop next-
generation p-y and t-z curves that capture these stiffness formulations at small
displacements and soil nonlinearity.
2.4 Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Models for Response

History Analysis
Nonlinear soil-structure interaction phenomena can involve geometric and material

nonlinearities in the superstructure, foundation, and soil. Specific sources of
nonlinearity may include: (1) yielding of seismic-force-resisting elements in the
superstructure; (2) yielding of soil, potentially exacerbated by strength loss induced
by pore-pressure (e.g., liquefaction, cyclic softening); (3) gapping between the
foundation and the soil, such as base uplift or separation of foundation sidewalls from
the surrounding material; and (4) yielding of foundation structural elements. These
nonlinear effects must be computed with response history analyses (RHA) performed
in the time domain. Addressing all these issues in RHA is a formidable task, even
with modern computational capabilities. Despite recent progress, knowledge in the
area is incomplete and the subject is evolving.
Most of the research performed on nonlinear SSI has been related to structural
yielding with linear, or equivalent-linear, soil (Case 1, above) or soil
yielding/gapping with a linear structure (Case 2/Case 3, above). A brief overview of
this work is presented in the following sections.
2.4.1 Nonlinear Structure and Equivalent-Linear Soil
Because of difficulties associated with modeling the constitutive behavior of soil in

three dimensions and wave propagation in a finite volume of geologic material under
the structure, without spurious wave reflections at fictitious model boundaries, most
studies focus on nonlinearities in the superstructure. If structural yielding develops at
relatively low intensity input motions, or if the foundation is over-designed,
significant material nonlinearities in the foundation and soil may not occur. This
justifies the use of equivalent-linear representations of subsurface material properties
in such analyses.
In a series of studies involving response of yielding simple oscillators, supported on

foundations resting on linear or equivalent-linear soil, subjected to strong earthquake
excitations, Ciampoli and Pinto (1995), Mylonakis and Gazetas (2000), Perez-Rocha
and Aviles (2003) among others, concluded that nonlinear SSI generally reduces
ductility demand in the superstructure. This effect can be rationalized using
principles for linear SSI presented in Figure 2-3. When the period is lengthened on
the descending branch of the spectrum (i.e., T/Tp > 1), the seismic demand is reduced,
regardless of whether the structure yields or not.

In the case of long-period input motions that potentially place the structure on the
ascending branch of the spectrum (i.e., T/Tp < 1), SSI-induced period lengthening
may lead to an increase in ductility demand. This can be viewed as progressive
resonance, when the effective fundamental period of the yielding structure, T,
approaches the predominant period of the foundation input motion, Tp. Evaluation of
the damping effects is more complex as nonlinearity tends to reduce radiation
damping and increase material damping in both the soil and the structure.
The performance of yielding structures is typically represented in terms of: (1) the
global or system ductility demand, s; or (2) the conventional member ductility
demand,  (Priestley and Park, 1987; Paulay and Priestley, 1992). For the structure
in Figure 2-1, these factors are defined as:

 s  max (2-28)
y
 max
 (2-29)
y
where  max ,  y , max ,  y are the maximum earthquake-induced displacement at the

top of a structure, the corresponding displacement at yield, the maximum earthquake-
induced column displacement relative to a rotated foundation, and the corresponding
column displacement at yield, respectively.
A key difference between these factors is that member ductility demand, , refers
exclusively to structural deformations, whereas global or system ductility demand, s,
encompasses rigid body movements associated with translation and rotation of the
foundation, which do not reflect strains in the superstructure. Equation 2-28 and
Equation 2-29 are geometric relations, and the former always provides smaller
numerical values than the latter for a given set of structural response values
(Ciampoli and Pinto, 1995; Mylonakis and Gazetas, 2000). Because of this, the use
of Equation 2-28 for assessing SSI effects on structural response might be of limited
value.
2.4.2 Nonlinearity in the Foundation and Soil
There is mounting analytical and experimental evidence that material and geometric
nonlinearities in the soil may be beneficial to the seismic response of a structure.
This has led some authors (e.g., Gazetas, 2006; Gajan and Kutter, 2008) to propose
revising the foundation design philosophy by allowing significant yielding in the soil
close to the foundation, or the foundation itself, to dissipate energy and protect the
superstructure. This requires control of settlement and tilting of the structure.
Hence, the analysis and design process considering soil nonlinearity involves
optimization of the trade-offs between the potentially beneficial effects of soil

yielding (especially with regard to energy dissipation) and the detrimental effects of
settlement or residual tilt. In this section, several methods are described by which
calculations of this type can be carried out.
Soil-structure interaction studies with nonlinear soil and foundation behavior can be
classified into three approaches: (1) continuum models, (2) beam-on-nonlinear
winkler foundation (BNWF) models, and (3) plasticity-based macro-models. The
first approach is by far the most computationally demanding, and has been employed
to a limited extent (Borja and Wu, 1994; Jeremic et al., 2009). Available findings
suggest the creation of stress-induced inhomogeneities under the foundation, which
may limit wave radiation away from the structure and cause wave reflections leading
to resonance effects.
The second and third approaches for nonlinear soil modeling are briefly described
below. Although both approaches can consider material nonlinearities, only macro-
element approaches are currently configured for material nonlinearities (gapping).
The basic description of the models, their input parameters, and a brief comparison
with experimental data are provided. The reader is referred to related literature for
additional information. The emphasis in the following discussion is on two specific
models that are implemented in OpenSees, Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (McKenna, 1997; OpenSees, 2011). Their implementation could be
reasonably extended to other computational platforms in the future. Much of the
content is adapted from Gajan et al. (2010).
Beam-on-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) Models
Starting with the pioneering work of McClelland and Focht (1958), beam-on-
nonlinear winkler foundation (BNWF) models have been used for many years for
analyzing the response of foundations, most notably piles, for static loads (Matlock,
1970; Cox et al., 1974) and dynamic loads (Penzien, 1970; Nogami et al., 1992;
Boulanger et al., 1999). Key advantages of these models over continuum
formulations lies in their ability to describe soil-structure interaction phenomena by
one-dimensional nonlinear springs distributed along the soil-foundation interface. It
is well-known that the modulus of the springs (also known as modulus of sub-grade
reaction) is not uniquely a soil property, but also depends on foundation stiffness,
geometry, frequency, response mode, and level of strain. A limitation of the
approach relates to its one-dimensional nature. A spring responds only to loads
acting parallel to its axis, so loads acting in a perpendicular direction have no effect
on the response of the spring. Accordingly, the concept of plastic potential and flow
rule cannot be explicitly incorporated. Nevertheless, the BNWF approach is popular
because of its simplicity and predictive abilities on a variety of problems.

The impedance models described in Section 2.2 are associated with linear springs
that can be coupled with gapping and damper elements (e.g., implemented by Chopra
and Yim, 1985). Nonlinear springs for shallow foundations have been used in
conjunction with gapping and damper elements by Allotey and Naggar (2003 and
2007) as well as Raychowdhury and Hutchinson (2009).
The BNWF model implemented into OpenSees by Raychowdhury and Hutchinson

(2009) consists of elastic beam-column elements that capture the structural footing
behavior with independent zero-length soil elements that model the soil-footing
behavior. Currently it is developed for two-dimensional analysis only. Therefore,
the one-dimensional elastic beam-column elements used for the footing have three
degrees-of-freedom per node (i.e., horizontal, vertical, and rotation). As illustrated in
Figure 2-13, one-dimensional uniaxial springs are used to simulate the vertical load-
displacement behavior (q-z), horizontal passive load-displacement behavior against
the side of a footing (p-x), and horizontal shear-sliding behavior at the base of a
footing (t-x). Moment-rotation behavior is captured by distributing vertical springs
along the base of the footing.
Figure 2-13 Schematic illustration of a Beam-on-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF)

model: (a) hypothesized foundation-superstructure system; (b) idealized model;
and (c) variable vertical stiffness distribution (Raychowdhury and Hutchinson,
2009, with permission).

The mathematical model of the q-z, p-x, and t-x nonlinear springs in Figure 2-13 was
adapted from a model for pile foundations by Boulanger et al. (1999). Within the
OpenSees framework, the materials describing these springs are the QzSimple2,
PxSimple1, and TxSimple1 material models, respectively. The QzSimple2,
PxSimple1and TxSimple1 material models differ from their parent (pile-calibrated)
models (QzSimple1, PySimple1, and TzSimple1) only in the backbone shape
parameters. Each material captures the “far-field” elastic behavior and “near-field”
permanent displacements.
The material models are mechanistic, based on an arrangement of various linear and
nonlinear springs, gap elements, and dashpots. Radiation damping can be accounted
for using a dashpot that is placed in parallel with the far-field elastic component. The
backbone curves are thus characterized by a linear-elastic region, followed by an
increasingly growing nonlinear region. The QzSimple2 material has an asymmetric
hysteretic response, with a backbone curve defined by an ultimate load on the
compression side and a reduced strength in tension to account for the low strength of
soil in tension. The PxSimple1 material is envisioned to capture the passive
resistance, associated stiffness, and potential gapping of embedded shallow footings
subjected to lateral loads. This material model is characterized by a pinched
hysteretic behavior, which can more suitably account for the phenomena of gapping
during unloading on the opposite side of a footing. The TxSimple1 material is
intended to capture the frictional resistance along the base of a shallow foundation.
This material is characterized by a large initial stiffness and a broad hysteresis, as
anticipated for frictional behavior associated with foundation sliding.
The functional forms and parameters describing the p-x, t-x, and q-z springs are
similar, so only the q-z model is described here. The backbone curve has linear and
nonlinear regions. The linear-elastic portion of the backbone curve is described by
the initial stiffness kz:
q  k zs (2-30)
where q represents the spring force, and s represents the spring deflection. The upper
limit of the linear-elastic region, defined as q0, is taken as a fraction of the ultimate
load qult as follows:
q 0  C r q ult (2-31)
where Cr is a parameter specified in OpenSees. The nonlinear (post-yield) portion of

the backbone is described by:
n
 cs 50 
q  q ult   q ult  q0   (for |s| > s0) (2-32)
 cs 50  s  s 0 

where s50 is the displacement at which 50% of the ultimate load is mobilized, s0 is the
displacement at load q0, and both c and n are constitutive parameters controlling the
shape of the post-yield portion of the backbone curve.
The unload-reload rules that operate with the backbone curve are relatively simple,
generally consisting of the familiar Masing rules (i.e., the shape of the unload and
reload portion of the cyclic loop matches twice the backbone curve). The drag and
gap component is parameterized by a bilinear closure spring in parallel with a
nonlinear drag spring. The cyclic response of each of the material models, when
subjected to a sinusoidal displacement, is demonstrated in Figure 2-14.
Figure 2-14 Cyclic response of OpenSees BNWF springs subjected to a sinusoidal

displacement: (a) q–z spring (Qzsimple2 material model); (b) p–x spring
(Pxsimple1 material model); and (c) t–x spring (Txsimple1 material model)
(Raychowdhury and Hutchinson, 2009, with permission).
User-defined parameters for the q-z element can be synthesized based on two
physical parameters obtained from the results of a typical high-quality geotechnical
site investigation (i.e., bearing capacity, qult, and elastic stiffness, kz) and several
relatively subtle parameters defining the details of the elements described above. The
need for several relatively unfamiliar parameters presents a barrier to implementation
of this type of model in practice. These parameters include:
 Radiation damping (cz). This dashpot coefficient is considered to be a physical
parameter that is well documented in the literature (e.g., Section 2.2). The
parameter is sensitive to soil stiffness, footing shape, aspect ratio and
embedment.
 Tension capacity (TP). The tension capacity parameter, TP, determines the
maximum magnitude of the drag force in Component 1 of the nonlinear springs.
It is the ratio of tension capacity to bearing capacity with typical selected values
of 0 to 0.10 (as suggested in Boulanger et al., 1999), although, more recently
some experts (e.g., Kutter) have recommended using a TP value of zero.
 Distribution and magnitude of vertical stiffness. As illustrated in Figure 2-8
and Figure 2-13, two parameters are necessary to account for the distribution and

magnitude of the vertical stiffness along the length of a footing: (1) the stiffness
intensity ratio, Rk (where, Rk=Kend/Kmid); and (2) the end length ratio, Re (where,
Re=Lend/2L). A variable stiffness distribution along the length is used to force the
distributed BNWF spring model to match the overall rotational stiffness
(Equations 2-21). The end region, Lend, is defined as the length of the edge
region over which the stiffness is increased. ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC, 1996) suggests the use of Lend = B/6 from
each end of the footing. This expression of end length ratio is independent of the
footing aspect ratio. Harden and Hutchinson (2009) suggest an expression that is
a function of the footing aspect ratio.
 Spring spacing (S). The spring spacing is input by the user as a fraction of the
footing half-length L (S = le/L), where le is the non-normalized spring spacing. A
maximum element length equal to 8% of the footing half-length (i.e., a minimum
number of 25 springs along the full length of the footing) is recommended to
provide numerical stability and reasonable accuracy.
 Shape parameters (Cr, c, n). These parameters are hard-wired into the
OpenSees implementation of the material models, meaning that they are not
specified by users. The recommended values are soil-type dependent, and were
developed based on comparisons of model predictions to test data as described by
Raychowdhury and Hutchinson (2008).
Figure 2-15 shows a comparison of the BNWF model of Raychowdhury and

Hutchinson (2009) to results from centrifuge test SSG04–06 conducted at the
University of California at Davis (summarized in Thomas et al., 2005). This test was
a slow, cyclic test conducted on a medium aspect ratio ( M / (V  L) = 2.4) shearwall
building, with a vertical factor of safety, FSv = 2.3, resting on dense sand with Dr =
80%. In these tests, M is the moment applied by the horizontal force, V, at the level
of the soil-foundation interface. Figures 2-15a through 2-15d show moment versus
rotation, settlement versus rotation, shear force versus sliding, and settlement versus
sliding histories, as predicted by the model and compared with the experiment. The
model compares reasonably well with the experimental results in terms of capturing
the shapes of the hysteresis loops and rotational and lateral stiffnesses. Additional
comparisons are provided in Raychowdhury (2008).
Plasticity Based Macro-Element (PBM) Models
Plasticity Based Macro-Element (PBM) theory is a recent development (Nova and

Montrasio, 1991) with application to nonlinear response of rigid foundations. This
family of models combines elements from both continuum and BNWF formulations.
Hence, it aims at bridging the gap between the two approaches. The models are
based on the following main assumptions: (1) the foundation is considered
sufficiently rigid, so its response can be described by three or six degrees of freedom

Figure 2-15 Comparison of BNWF model response to centrifuge tests for a medium aspect
ratio building on dense sand, with Dr = 80%, and FSv = 2.3: (a) moment-rotation;
(b) settlement-rotation; (c) shear-sliding; and (d) settlement-sliding
(Raychowdhury and Hutchinson, 2009, with permission).
in two and three dimensions, respectively; (2) an ultimate surface, corresponding to a

general bearing capacity failure in vertical force–shear force–moment (Q-V-M)
space, exists corresponding to the state of stress beyond which plastic flow occurs;
(3) a mechanism for describing plastic flow is incorporated in the form of a hypo-
plastic approach or a simple G- and s- correction based on a characteristic shear
strain; and (4) uplift behavior can be modeled by means of a nonlinear model
allowing for separation between the footing and soil (Pecker and Chatzigogos, 2010).
While PBM models are rational and can capture plastic effects, available
formulations possess a number of drawbacks, notably an inability to incorporate
flexible foundation behavior, the effects of stress-induced inhomogeneity on
radiation damping, and failure modes other than general shear failure. In addition,
there is limited experimental validation of the models. More details are given in
Cremer et al. (2001), Houlsby and Cassidy (2002), Chatzigogos et al. (2009) and
Pecker and Chatzigogos (2010). A variant of these models, focusing on uplift
phenomena in compliant soil, is examined in some detail below.
Macro-element models describe a single element placed at the interface between a

rigid foundation and free-field soil to represent the flexibility and energy dissipation

associated with soil-structure interaction. From a numerical modeling standpoint, the
macro-element is directly located at the footing-soil interface, replacing the rigid
foundation and surrounding soil. When incremental displacements are given to the
macro-element as input, it returns the corresponding incremental loads, and vice
versa. Figure 2-16 shows an example of a contact interface model (CIM) developed
by Gajan and Kutter (2009).
Figure 2-16 Conceptual illustration of a macro-element contact interface model (CIM)

(Gajan and Kutter, 2009, with permission from ASCE).
The model differs from other macro-element models in that its constitutive relations
are obtained by tracking the geometry of gaps and contacts of the soil-foundation
interface. To this end, the CIM provides nonlinear relations between cyclic loads and
displacements of the soil-foundation system during combined cyclic loading (i.e.,
vertical, shear, and moment).
Soil-foundation contact is tracked in the CIM using a parameter called the critical
contact area ratio, A/Ac, where A is the area of the footing, and Ac is the area of the
footing required to have contact with the soil to support the vertical and shear loads.
The ratio A/Ac can be considered to be an alternate definition of the factor of safety
with respect to bearing capacity. For a two-dimensional shear wall structure loaded
in the plane of the wall, the ratio A/Ac equals the footing length ratio 2L/Lc, as shown
in Figure 2-17a. In Figure 2-17b, the foundation position is tracked relative to the
underlying soil surface, which is pushed as far as the “soil_max” surface, but which
rebounds to the “soil_min” surface when unloaded. Zero stress transfer between the
soil and foundation occurs in the gap region.
With seven user-defined input parameters, the CIM is intended to capture the
essential features (load capacities, stiffness degradation, energy dissipation, and
permanent deformations) of the cyclic load-deformation behavior of shallow
foundations. One advantage of the CIM relative to the BNWF model is that the

moment, shear, and vertical load capacities are coupled. Coupling between the
vertical and moment capacities is caused by gap formation (i.e., the moment capacity
typically occurs after a gap has formed, causing the vertical capacity to drop). The
coupling between shear and moment capacity is accounted for using an interaction
diagram as described by Gajan and Kutter (2009).
(a) (b)
Figure 2-17 Contact interface model (CIM): (a) definition of critical contact length; and (b)
tracking of foundation position relative to soil pressures (Gajan and Kutter, 2009,
with permission from ASCE).
Input parameters for the CIM are the ultimate vertical load, QULT, the length of
footing, 2L, the initial vertical stiffness, Kv, the initial horizontal stiffness, Kh, the
elastic rotation limit, elastic, the rebound ratio, Rv, and the internal node spacing, DL.
The initial rotation stiffness is calculated by the CIM based on the specified vertical
stiffness and footing geometry. Of those parameters, elastic, Rv, and DL are relatively
subtle, and are briefly described below:
 Elastic rotation limit (elastic). The elastic rotation limit is defined as the
maximum amplitude of rotation for which no settlement occurs. A value of
0.001 radians is recommended based on comparisons with centrifuge
experiments (Gajan et al., 2008).
 Rebound ratio (Rv). The rebound ratio, Rv, is an empirical factor that accounts
for the elastic rebound and bulging of soil into the gap below an uplifted footing.
It is the ratio of the soil uplift displacement (from rebound) to the total soil
settlement, and significantly affects the length of the transition zone between the
gap and the full foundation pressure zone shown in Figure 2-17b. The default
value is 0.1, which reasonably fits data from available centrifuge model tests.
Increasing Rv reduces cyclic foundation settlement, and improves numerical
convergence in most cases.
 Footing node spacing (DL). The node spacing, DL, specifies the distance
between footing nodes internally created within the model. This user-defined
parameter affects numerical stability and accuracy as well as computation time.
Node spacing should be selected based on the vertical factor of safety, FSv;

foundations with large FSv require small node spacing, DL. The suggested range
for DL varies from 1.0% of the half-length, L, of the footing (for FSv  2) to 0.1%
(for FSv  40).
A number of additional parameters describing the shape of the moment-shear

interaction diagram and the shape of transition curves between elastic and yielding
states are hard-wired into the OpenSees source code for this element, as described in
Gajan and Kutter (2009).
Figure 2-18 shows a comparison of the CIM model to results from centrifuge test
SSG02–05 conducted at the University of California at Davis (summarized in Gajan
et al., 2003). This test was a static cyclic test conducted on a medium aspect ratio
( M / (V  L) = 3.44) shearwall building, with a vertical factor of safety, FSv = 2.6,
resting on dense sand with Dr = 80%. Figures 2-18a through 2-18d show moment
versus rotation, settlement versus rotation, shear force versus sliding, and settlement
versus sliding histories, as predicted by the model and compared with the experiment.
The CIM demonstrates good comparison with the experimental results in terms of
capturing the shapes of the hysteresis loops and rotational and lateral stiffnesses.
Additional comparisons are presented in Gajan (2006) and Gajan et al. (2008).
800 150
Shear force (KN)
Moment (KNm)
100
400
50
0
0
-400
-50
-800 -100
Experiment
40 40
CIM Simulation
Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)
0 0
-40 -40
-80 -80
-120 -120
-160 -160
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -40 -20 0 20 40
Rotation (rad) Sliding (mm)
Figure 2-18 Comparison of CIM simulation to centrifuge tests for a medium aspect ratio
building on dense sand, with Dr = 80%, and FSv = 2.6: (a) moment-rotation;
(b) settlement-rotation; (c) shear-sliding; and (d) settlement-sliding (Gajan
and Kutter, 2009, with permission from ASCE).

2.4.3 Model Comparisons and Recommendations for Response History
Analysis
Gajan et al. (2010) compared the performance of the BNWF and CIM nonlinear SSI
models for hypothetical site conditions and experimental datasets. Based on those
comparisons, recommendations for model selection are as follows:
 If the simulations are to be used for structural design of footing elements, or the
footing flexibility is anticipated to contribute to the foundation response, the
BNWF model should be chosen. This model can be used to more directly
evaluate internal moments and shears used for section design.
 If the normalized moment to shear ratio M / (V  L) is less than approximately
3.0, and sliding is not restrained by slabs and grade beams, then the moment
capacity of the footing will be sensitive to shear load, and vice versa. In this
case, the CIM model is preferred because of its ability to account for coupling
between the moment, shear, and axial responses. For cases with M / (V  L)
greater than 3.0, rocking will tend to dominate, and both models should produce
similar results if the parameter selection protocols herein are followed. Coupling
may also be neglected for very small M / (V  L) ratios where sliding is known
to dominate. Note: M, V, and L are as defined previously.
 In other analytical platforms (other than OpenSees), implementation of the
BNWF model will be more easily accomplished if bilinear spring, gap, and
damping elements are available. Although feasible, implementation of the CIM
in another platform would require implementation of a new element, and access
to the source code for the host platform.

Chapter 3
Kinematic Interaction
Kinematic interaction results from the presence of stiff foundation elements on or in

soil, which causes motions at the foundation to deviate from free-field motions. One
cause of these deviations is base-slab averaging, in which spatially variable ground
motions within the building envelope are averaged within the foundation footprint
due to the stiffness and strength of the foundation system. Another cause of
deviation is embedment effects, in which foundation-level motions are reduced as a
result of ground motion reduction with depth below the free surface. If the
foundation is pile-supported, the piles interact with wave propagation below the base
slab, which can further modify foundation-level motions at the base of a structure.
This chapter describes the phenomena of base-slab averaging, embedment effects,

and kinematic pile response, and presents available models for analysis of these
effects. Models for kinematic interaction effects are expressed as frequency-
dependent ratios of the Fourier amplitudes (i.e., transfer functions) of foundation
input motion (FIM) to free-field motion. The FIM is the theoretical motion of the
base slab if the near-surface foundation elements (i.e., base slabs, basement walls)
and the structure had no mass, and is used for seismic response analysis in the
substructure approach described in Section 1.2.
3.1 Shallow Foundations at the Ground Surface
Base-slab averaging results from adjustment of spatially variable ground motions that
would be present within the envelope of the foundation, which are averaged within
the foundation footprint due to the stiffness and strength of the foundation system.
Base-slab averaging can be understood by recognizing that the motion that would
have occurred in the absence of the structure is spatially variable. Placement of a
foundation slab across these variations produces an averaging effect in which the
foundation motion is less than the localized maxima that would have occurred in the
free-field. Torsional rotations, referred to as the “tau effect” (Newmark, 1969), can
also be introduced.
Motions of surface foundations are modified relative to the free-field when seismic
waves are incoherent. Incoherence of the incident waves at two different points
means that they have variations in their phase angle. Some incoherence is
deterministic (i.e., predictable), because it results from wave passage. For example,
as illustrated in Figure 3-1a, the presence of a non-zero vertical angle causes waves to
arrive at different points along the foundation of a building at different times. This is
GCR 12-917-21 3: Kinematic Interaction 3-1

referred to as the wave passage effect. Investigation of wave passage effects in dense
seismic arrays at soil sites indicates apparent propagation velocities, Vapp, of
approximately 2.0 km/sec to 3.5 km/sec, which appears to be controlled by wave
propagation in crustal rock beneath the soil column (Ancheta et al., 2011).
Incoherence that remains when waves are aligned to have common arrival times is
stochastic, and is quantified by lagged coherency models. Stochastic incoherence
results from source-to-site heterogeneities in the seismic path of travel, which scatters
seismic waves. Lagged coherency is also well-documented in array studies (e.g.,
Abrahamson et al., 1991; Ancheta et al., 2011). As a practical matter, incoherence
from wave passage and lagged coherency is always present in earthquake ground
motions to some degree.
Figure 3-1 Illustration of foundation subjected to inclined shear waves: (a) schematic
geometry; (b) transfer functions between FIM and free-field motion for wave
passage using a semi-empirical model for incoherent waves (parameter a is
defined in Equation 3-5).
In the presence of incoherent wave fields, translational base-slab motions are reduced
relative to the free-field, and rotational motions are introduced. The reduction in
translational motion is generally the more important result. Reductions of base-slab
translation and the introduction of torsion and rotation in the vertical plane are effects
that tend to become more significant with increasing frequency. The frequency-
dependence of these effects is primarily associated with: (1) the increased effective
size of the foundation relative to the seismic wavelengths at high frequencies; and (2)
significant reductions in lagged coherency with increasing frequency (Abrahamson et
al., 1991).
There are numerous theoretical models for predicting the relationship between
foundation input and free field ground motions in the presence of inclined, but
3-2 3: Kinematic Interaction GCR 12-917-21

otherwise coherent, shear waves (i.e., wave passage effects). Mylonakis et al. (2006)
synthesized these models with the following expressions:
u FIM  H u u g (3-1a)
  V 
sin  a 0k  s  
  V app    V app
Hu    
, a 0k  (3-1b)
 V  2 Vs
a 0k  s 
V 
 app 
2  V app
Hu  , a 0k  (3-1c)
 2 Vs
In the above expressions, a 0k is similar to a0 defined in Equation 2-15, except that the
foundation dimension is related to base contact area, as follows:
 B eA
a  k
0 (3-2)
Vs
where BeA is related to foundation area, as defined in Equation 2-18b. At a 0k = 0, the

expression in Equation 3-1b becomes indeterminate, and Hu should be taken as unity.
If, as indicated in array studies, Vapp ranges from approximately 2.0 km/s to 3.5 km/s,
then for a typical soil site, a reasonable estimate of the velocity ratio, Vapp/Vs, is
approximately 10. In Figure 3-1b, the result labeled “wave passage only” shows the
transfer function between uFIM and ug based on Equations 3-1. Using this model,
wave passage alone causes relatively modest base-slab reductions in ground motion
across the frequency range of engineering interest.
Transfer functions of recorded foundation input and free-field motions are generally
significantly lower at high frequencies than predicted by wave passage models. This
occurs because wave passage is a relatively modest contributor to the spatial
variation in ground motion that drives base-slab averaging. Additional sources of
variability include stochastic phase variability (quantified by lagged coherency) and
stochastic variations in Fourier amplitudes. Two approaches for capturing these
effects in the analysis of transfer functions are: (1) continuum modeling of the soil
and foundation system subject to input motions with a defined coherency function
(Computer Program SASSI2000, Lysmer et al., 1999; Ostadan et al., 2005); and (2)
application of a semi-empirical simplified model (Veletsos et al., 1997; Kim and
Stewart, 2003).
In SASSI, a site-specific and foundation-specific model is generated in three

dimensions. The foundation and soil material properties are equivalent-linear
without iteration on strain-dependent properties. Empirical coherency models can be

used that include wave passage and lagged coherency (e.g., Ancheta et al., 2011, for
soil sites; EPRI, 2007, for hard rock sites).
The semi-empirical model is based on a theoretical formulation of the kinematic

interaction problem by Veletsos and Prasad (1989) and Veletsos et al. (1997), who
apply spatially variable ground motions to a rigid foundation perfectly bonded to the
soil. Models evaluate the response of rigid, massless, circular and rectangular
foundations on the surface of an elastic half-space to incoherent S-waves propagating
either vertically or at an angle v to the vertical, as shown in Figure 3-1a. The results
are a relationship between transfer function amplitude and a 0k . This relationship is
essentially independent of foundation shape, but is strongly dependent upon a
parameter, a, related to lagged coherency and wave inclination that scales the
frequency axis of the theoretical transfer function. For vertically propagating waves
this transfer function (adapted from Veletsos and Prasad, 1989) can be written as:
12
 1 
H u   2 1  exp  2b0 2  I 0 (2b0 2 )  I1 (2b0 2 )    (3-3)
 b0 
where b0   
4   a a0k and I0 and I1 are modified Bessel functions, zero and first
order, respectively. Equation 3-3 was developed for circular foundations. The
4  term adapts a 0k (for rectangles) to a0 defined for an equivalent radius that
preserves foundation area. For small and large values of the argument (2b02), the
Bessel function summation in Equation 3-3 can be written in terms of power series
and exponential functions, respectively (Watson, 1995); for routine application, these
approximations can be expressed as:
 b0 6 b08 b010
1  b0
2
 b0
4
   for b0  1
 2 4 12
 I 0 (2b02 )  I1 (2b02 )     
(3-4)
 exp  2b 2   1 1  1   for b  1
 0
  b0  16b0  
2 0

Note that the exponential terms in Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4 cancel for b0 > 1.
The two functions in Equation 3-4 have a misfit of 0.0073 at b0 = 1, which is accurate
enough for practical purposes.
By matching model predictions to observed variations between foundation input and

free-field ground motions from instrumented buildings, Kim and Stewart (2003)
developed a semi-empirical model for a that can be written as:
 a  0.00065  V s , 200  V s  500m / s (3-5)
where Vs is a representative small-strain shear wave velocity for the soil beneath the
foundation, which can be calculated as described in Section 2.2.2.

Values of a identified through calibration reflect the combined effects of
incoherence from wave passage and stochastic processes, as well as Fourier
amplitude variability. Figure 3-1b shows transfer function Hu calculated using the
semi-empirical approach near the upper and lower limits of a. Two key
observations from this figure are: (1) as a increases (indicating increasingly spatially
variable motions), Hu decreases significantly; and (2) for the range of a supported by
case history data, Hu from the semi-empirical procedure is much lower than from
wave passage models. This can be attributed to significant contributions of stochastic
phase and amplitude variability to base-slab averaging.
The data set considered by Kim and Stewart (2003) consists of buildings with mat
foundations, footing and grade beam foundations, and grade beam and friction pile
foundations, generally with base dimensions, BeA , in the range of 15 m to 40 m.
Although the Veletsos models strictly apply to rigid foundations, the semi-empirical
model applies to the more realistic foundation conditions present in the calibration
data set.
Errors could occur, however, when the model is applied to conditions beyond the
calibration data set. In particular, the effects of incoherence in the Veletsos models is
taken as proportional to wavelength, thus implying strong scaling with frequency and
distance. Array data indicate that distance scaling is much weaker than the frequency
scaling (Abrahamson et al., 1991; Ancheta et al., 2011), so the model would be
expected to over-predict the effects of incoherence (under-predict Hu) for very large
foundations. The opposite would be true for small foundations. Even within the
parameter range of the calibration data set, it should be recognized that the empirical
model fits the data in an average sense, and should not be expected to match any
particular observation.
3.2 Embedded Shallow Foundations
If the base slab of a building is embedded below the ground surface (i.e., the structure
has a basement), foundation-level motions are further reduced as a result of ground
motion reduction with depth below the free surface. The available solutions apply to
rigid cylinders embedded in a uniform soil of finite or infinite thickness (half-space).
Analytical solutions by Kausel et al. (1978) and Day (1978) describe foundation
input motions at the base of embedded cylinders as a function of free-field surface
ground motion ug. When subjected to vertically propagating coherent shear waves,
embedded cylinders experience a reduction in base translational motion, relative to
ug, due to ground motion reductions with depth and wave scattering effects.
Rotations in the vertical plane are also introduced as a result of differential
displacements imposed upon the cylinders over their embedded depth. These transfer
functions can be adapted to rectangular foundation shapes as:

u FIM  D   D  D
Hu   cos  a 0k   cos  ,  1.1 (3-6a)
ug  Be   Vs  Vs
D
H u  0.45,  1.1 (3-6b)
Vs
L   D   D 
H yy     0.26 1  cos   ,  (3-6c)
ug   Vs   Vs 2
D 
H yy    0.26,  (3-6d)
Vs 2
where D is the embedment depth, as shown in Figure 3-2a. Velocity, Vs, in this case
should be interpreted as the average effective profile velocity, Vs, avg, defined in
Section 2.2.2. The transfer functions for rotation in the xx direction have the same
form as Equation 3-6(c) and Equation 3-6(d), except that it expresses the rotation
B/ug.
Figure 3-2 Illustration of foundation subjected to vertically incident shear waves:

(a) schematic geometry; and (b) transfer functions for horizontal
foundation translation and rocking.
Figure 3-2b plots the transfer functions for translation and rotation. The reduction of
translation is substantial at high frequencies, saturating at about 70% of fE, which is
the fundamental frequency of the soil column between the surface and depth, D.
With a high-frequency de-amplification level of 0.45, the embedment effect is often
more important than the base-slab averaging effect for building structures.

Conversely, foundation rotation increases with frequency and saturates at fE. Stewart
and Tileylioglu (2007) checked the predictions of rigid cylinder models against
records from nuclear reactor structures and embedded buildings. Away from
frequencies strongly influenced by inertial interaction, the comparison was favorable,
indicating that these functions can be applied to realistic conditions encountered in
engineering practice.
To illustrate the significance of kinematic interaction from base-slab averaging and

embedment effects, transfer functions were computed using motions recorded from
the 1987 Whittier earthquake at the Ranch Cucamonga Law and Justice Center
building (California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, CSMIP, Station
Number 23497). Results are shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3 Illustration of base-slab averaging and embedment effects at CSMIP

Station 23497 during the 1987 Whittier Earthquake: (a) foundation
and sensor location plan; (b) acceleration time histories; and (c)
observed and model-based transfer functions.
Reference recording locations in the east-west (E-W) direction, at an embedment

depth of 5.9 m below the foundation, and in the free-field, are shown in Figure 3-3a.
Acceleration histories shown in Figure 3-3b illustrate the general reduction of ground
motions at the foundation, ufndn, relative to the free field, ug. Figure 3-3c compares
the transfer function of recordings, ufndn/ug, computed using procedures given in
Mikami et al. (2008) to model predictions for base-slab averaging alone and base-
slab averaging combined with embedment. Model predictions are based on
Equations 3-3 to 3-6, using Vs = 390 m/sec, B = 16.8 m, L = 63.1 m, and D = 5.9 m.
The data have significant scatter, but trend from unity at zero frequency to about 0.2

to 0.4 at high frequencies. The models capture these general trends, but are clearly
not a perfect fit to the data.
3.3 Pile Foundations
When building foundations are pile-supported, the kinematic interaction problem is

complicated by the influence of the piles on wave propagation below the foundation,
and also by the potential for the soil to settle away from the pile-supported base of
the structure, forming a gap. This is a complex kinematic soil-structure interaction
problem for which there are no well-calibrated engineering models.
Flores-Berones and Whitman (1982), Fan et al. (1991), and Nikolaou et al. (2001)
describe the kinematic response of vertical piles and pile groups in elastic soil
subjected to vertically propagating coherent shear waves. Similar solutions for
inclined (coherent) waves have been presented by Barghouthi (1984), Mamoon and
Banerjee (1990), and Kaynia and Novak (1992). Because the incident motions
assumed in the development of these models were coherent, these models do not
adequately incorporate base-slab averaging effects. Consequently, model predictions
do not compare favorably to data (Kim and Stewart, 2003). In particular, transfer
function ordinates, Hu, are significantly over-predicted by the Fan et al. (1991)
models at high frequencies.
Kim and Stewart (2003) found that observed variations between foundation input and
free-field ground motions at building sites in California could be adequately
represented with the models for shallow foundations in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.
The pile-supported buildings considered were generally founded on alluvial soils, and
the piles were not end-bearing. At building sites in Japan, however, Mikami et al.
(2006) found that model predictions for base-slab averaging (SASSI, and the semi-
empirical method in Section 3.1) overestimated Hu relative to data. The pile
foundations in the Japanese data set have relatively high flexural stiffness, and were
more nearly end-bearing, in comparison to the California data set. Development of
analytical solutions for the kinematic interaction problem for pile-supported
foundations of varying flexural rigidity subjected to realistic (incoherent) input
motion remains an important research need.
3.4 Application of Transfer Functions
Design-basis response spectra generally apply to free-field ground motion conditions.

Suites of acceleration time histories are also developed when response history
analyses are to be performed. This section discusses how the transfer function from a
kinematic interaction analysis should be used to modify free-field ground motions
represented by a response spectrum, or ground motion suite, to account for the
interaction effects described above.

The response spectrum for uFIM (Sa-FIM) differs from the spectrum for ug (Sa) because
of a reduction in high frequency ground motion components due to kinematic
interaction. For moderate to low frequencies, the ratio of spectral ordinates can be
estimated as:
S a  FIM ( f )
 H u ( f ), f  fL (3-7a)
Sa( f )
At higher frequencies, the approximation from Equation 3-7 does not hold because
high frequency spectral ordinates and PGA are controlled by lower-frequency
components of the ground motion. At high frequencies, a conservative
approximation of spectral ordinates can generally be obtained from:
S a  FIM ( f )
 H u ( f L ), f  fL (3-7b)
Sa( f )
The limiting frequency, fL, depends on the frequency content of ug. For typical stiff
soil or rock ground motions having mean periods in the range of 0.2 sec to 0.5 sec, fL
has been found to be approximately 5 Hz, as documented in Appendix E of FEMA
440, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA, 2005).
Long-period ground motions resulting from near-fault directivity pulses or soft soil
effects, however, can have much lower limiting frequencies, fL, such that no
significant spectral ordinate reductions from kinematic interaction are realizable.
Further research is needed to identify factors controlling fL, and to develop more
reliable recommendations for engineering application.
Differences between transfer functions and ratios of response spectra are illustrated in
Figure 3-4 using the Rancho Cucamonga data presented in Figure 3-3. East-west
(E-W) response spectra are shown in Figure 3-4a. Reductions in foundation motions
relative to free-field motions are apparent for periods less than approximately 0.7 sec
(of frequencies greater than 1.4 Hz). Figure 3-4b shows the ratio of response spectra
(RRS) for the E-W direction along with: (1) the transfer function model, Hu, for both
base-slab averaging and embedment effects; and (2) the RRS model derived from Hu
using Equation 3-7. The RRS model captures the general trends of the data, although
there are significant period-to-period variations in the data (and even some RRS
ordinates greater than unity). The RRS data does not show the strong decrease in
spectral ratios with decreasing period that is evident in the Hu function, which
illustrates the saturation effect described above.
Acceleration histories representing the FIM can be modified from free-field motions
using the following procedure:
1. Calculate the Fourier transforms of ug.

2. Multiply the amplitude of ug by Hu. As an optional step, the phase of uFIM could
be randomized from that of ug using the procedures in Chapter 3 of Ancheta
(2010). If the phase is not randomized, then ug and uFIM will be coherent.
3. Perform a reverse Fourier transform to estimate uFIM(t).
For most practical situations, this procedure could be avoided by merely selecting
and modifying ground motions for compatibility with Sa-FIM in lieu of Sa, in which
case no further modification is needed.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3-4 Illustration of differences between transfer functions and ratios of

response spectra using data from CSMIP Station 23497 during the
1987 Whittier Earthquake: (a) E-W response spectra recorded at the
site; and (b) ratio of response spectra from recordings compared to
model prediction for RRS and transfer function, Hu.

Chapter 4
Implementation in Standards and
Design Guidelines
Soil-structure interaction provisions exist in the following engineering standards and

design guidelines:
 ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC, 1996).
 ASCE 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and
Commentary (ASCE, 1998).
 FEMA 440, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures
(FEMA, 2005).
 ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2007)
 FEMA P-750, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and
Other Structures (FEMA, 2009).
 ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE, 2010).
 PEER Report No. 2010/05, Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of
Tall Buildings (PEER, 2010).
Despite the availability of these resources, soil-structure interaction is seldom

considered in typical U.S. design practice. This is driven in part by challenges in
understanding, learning, and implementing fundamental SSI principles, but also in
the way that SSI provisions are characterized in seismic design provisions. In
general, accounting for SSI is handled through optional procedures, some of which
can only reduce base shear demands. Under such conditions, ignoring SSI is not only
easier, it is conservative.
However, trends in practice are tending toward increased use of SSI. This has been
driven principally by seismic retrofit projects in which SSI analysis is used to gain
better insight into structural performance and to improve accuracy in the analytical
simulation of important structural response quantities. This chapter describes the
implementation of SSI procedures in currently available engineering standards and
guidelines. Limitations of those procedures are also briefly discussed.
GCR 12-917-21 4: Implementation in Standards and Design Guidelines 4-1

4.1 Force-Based Procedures
Implementation of soil-structure interaction into the equivalent lateral force

procedure for seismic design is specified in Chapter 19 of ASCE/SEI 7-10, which
was developed based on information contained in the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions (FEMA, 2009). The seismic base shear considering SSI effects is
defined as:
V  C sW (4-1)
where Cs is a seismic coefficient, taken as the design response spectral ordinate, at

building period T, normalized by the acceleration of gravity, g, and W is the effective
seismic weight of the structure (taken as 70% of the total weight). The shape of the
design response spectrum is schematically illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1 Schematic illustration of the shape of the design response spectrum in the
NEHRP Recommended Provisions.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions) neglect kinematic

interaction effects but account for inertial interaction effects related to period
lengthening and damping ratio. The change in base shear is calculated as:
  0.05  
0.4

 V  C s  C s   W (4-2)
   0  
The change in base shear is related to the change in seismic coefficient (or spectral
acceleration). The C s term in Equation 4-2 represents the seismic coefficient
obtained from the design spectrum at an elongated period, T . The term  0.05  0 
0.4
represents the reduction in spectral ordinate associated with a change in damping

from the fixed-base structural damping value of i = 0.05, to the flexible-base value
of 0.
It is important to note that the shape of the design spectrum is flat, or has a negative
slope with respect to period. Coupled with the requirement that 0 must exceed i
4-2 4: Implementation in Standards and Design Guidelines GCR 12-917-21

(discussed further below), this ensures that utilizing SSI provisions will always
reduce base shear.
Modification of design base shear for SSI effects in equivalent lateral force
procedures has a potentially significant shortcoming. There is no link between base
shear reduction factors intended to represent structural ductility (i.e., R factors) and
soil-structure interaction. Crouse (2001) noted that existing R factors may already
reflect the beneficial effects of soil-structure interaction, and modifying the base
shear to account for both SSI and ductility may be unconservative in some cases.
Accordingly, there is a need to revisit the definition of R factors with respect to SSI
effects, and define values that represent structural ductility effects alone.
Period lengthening is calculated using an equation similar to Equation 4-3 (originally

presented as Equation 2-7 in Chapter 2 of this report):
T k kh 2
 1  (4-3)
T k x k yy
however, ASCE/SEI 7-10 does not specify how lateral stiffness, kx, or rotational
stiffness, kyy, are to be evaluated. The Commentary to the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions provides some guidance related to circular foundations, but the
rectangular foundation models contained in Chapter 2, Section 2.2 are more useful
for practical engineering applications.
The shear modulus, G, used in conjunction with equations for static foundation
stiffness, must be reduced from the shear modulus at small strain levels, G0, to
account for large strain effects. ASCE/SEI 7-10 (and the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions) provides values for adjusting the shear modulus and shear wave velocity
for large strain levels based on site class and spectral response acceleration levels.
These values are provided in Table 2-1.
Foundation damping is calculated using an equation similar to Equation 4-4

(originally presented as Equation 2-10 in Chapter 2 of this report):
1
0   f  i (4-4)
T T 
n
with fixed-base structural damping, i = 0.05, and exponent, n = 3 (for ideally viscous
material damping). In ASCE/SEI 7-10 (and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions),
the foundation damping factor, f, is not evaluated directly from controlling variables
as in Equation 2-11a (Chapter 2 of this report), but is taken from a plot like the one
shown in Figure 4-2, in which the period lengthening ratio is related to f as a
function of structure aspect ratio, h/r. Note that r is an equivalent foundation radius,
which is calculated to match the foundation area for squat structures and the

foundation moment of inertia for slender structures. The relationship in Figure 4-2 is
calculated from Veletsos and Nair (1975), using the absolute value of the complex-
valued damping relationship, and including both radiation damping and hysteretic
soil damping.
Figure 4-2 Plot of relationship between period lengthening and foundation

damping (FEMA, 2009; ASCE, 2010).
Soil-structure interaction provisions for the equivalent lateral force procedure in

ASCE/SEI 7-10 (and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions) are written such that
base shear demand is only reduced through consideration of SSI. Therefore, ignoring
SSI effects in the design process is analytically conservative. In practice, the
beneficial effects of period lengthening and foundation damping are negligible for
tall, flexible structures. Use of SSI procedures yields the most benefit for short-
period, stiff structures with stiff, interconnected foundation systems (i.e., mats or
interconnected footings) founded on soil.
Consideration of soil-structure interaction is also permitted when modal response

spectrum analysis is used for seismic design. Implementation of SSI in modal
response spectrum analysis is similar to the implementation for equivalent lateral
force analysis. Period lengthening and modification of damping, however, are only
applied in the fundamental lateral mode of response. Higher mode vibration periods
and damping ratios are not modified for the effects of SSI.
The principal limitations of force-based procedures in ASCE/SEI 7-10 are: (1) use of
simplified spectra that can only result in a decrease in base shear as period lengthens;

(2) use of relatively simplified models, applicable to circular foundation geometries,
for soil-foundation springs and foundation damping; and (3) lack of consideration of
kinematic interaction effects on foundation-level ground motions. These limitations
were considered necessary to make the procedures sufficiently simple for broad use
in practice.
A potentially important consideration associated with the use of the SSI procedures
in Chapter 19 of ASCE/SEI 7-10 is the value of the fixed-base fundamental period, T.
Chapter 12 of ASCE/SEI 7-10 contains approximate methods for evaluation of T, and
limiting values (i.e., CuTa), which bias the estimate of T to intentionally produce
conservative values of design base shear. In SSI procedures, T should be taken as the
best estimate value of period, without deliberate bias.
Chapter 12 of ASCE/SEI 7-10 (Section 12.13) also contains procedures for

incorporation of foundation flexibility (i.e., soil springs) into structural models for
linear analysis. The use of an elongated period from Chapter 19 with a structural
model containing foundation springs (per Section 12.13) would overestimate the
effects of foundation flexibility, so the simultaneous use of both sets of procedures is
not permitted in ASCE/SEI 7-10.
4.2 Displacement-Based Procedures
In displacement-based procedures, system behavior is represented by a force versus

displacement relationship that is calculated through nonlinear static (i.e., pushover)
analyses. A pushover analysis involves the application of static lateral loads
distributed over the height of the structure, and calculation of the resulting
displacements in a model of the SSI system. A pushover analysis of a structure with
a flexible base is schematically illustrated in Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3 Schematic illustration of a pushover analysis and development of a pushover curve
for a structure with a flexible base.

The cumulative lateral load resultant, H, is related to a reference displacement, ,
forming the nonlinear pushover curve. In some applications, the pushover curve is
modified to an acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS) by converting
H to an equivalent spectral acceleration, and converting  to an equivalent spectral
displacement (e.g, Chopra and Goel, 1999; Powell, 2006). At each point on the
pushover curve, the deformations of all components in the structural system are
related to the reference displacement.
Powell (2006) describes common ways by which the pushover curve is combined
with a design response spectrum to estimate the seismic displacement in a structure.
Three such methods are known as the Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC, 1996), the
Coefficient Method (FEMA, 1997; FEMA, 2000; and ASCE, 2007), and Equivalent
Linearization (FEMA, 2005). These methods are illustrated in Figure 4-4.
Soil-structure interaction is considered in displacement-based analysis procedures

through: (1) foundation springs used in the pushover model; (2) reduction of the free-
field response spectrum for kinematic interaction effects; and (3) reduction of the
response spectrum for flexible-base damping ratios, 0, that are greater than the
fixed-base structural damping ratio, i. The manner by which these components are
evaluated in displacement-based analysis procedures is described below. Slight
modifications to the notation contained in reference engineering standards and
guidelines have been made for consistency with the notation adopted in this report.
In general, soil-foundation springs used in pushover analyses are similar to those

described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, except that dynamic stiffness modifiers are
neglected. The Pais and Kausel (1988) static stiffness equations listed in Table 2-2
are used. Distributed vertical springs are evaluated in a manner similar to that
described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3. Horizontal springs are not distributed but are
concentrated at the end of the foundation as shown in Figure 2-8 (in Chapter 2).
Kinematic interaction effects are represented in terms of ratios of response spectra

(RRS) between the foundation and free-field motions. Equations for RRS as a
function of period are given for the effects of base slab averaging and embedment are
adapted from FEMA 440 as follows:
1  2  B e  0.3048  
1.2
A
1
RRS bsa 1   T (4-5a)
14100  T  fL
 
1

2  B eA  0.3048 f L  1
1.2
RRS bsa  1  T (4-5b)
14100 fL

Figure 4-4 Schematic illustration of procedures used to combine pushover
curves with design response spectra to estimate seismic
displacements in a structure (Powell, 2006, with permission).

 2 D  1
RRS emb  cos   T (4-6a)
 TV sr  fL
 2 Df L  1
RRS emb  cos   T (4-6b)
 V sr  fL
where Vsr is the strain-reduced shear wave velocity evaluated using the reduction
factors in Table 2-1. In Equations 4-5, the equivalent foundation dimension BeA is
expressed in units of meters. These equations are a curve-fit of the semi-empirical
base-slab averaging transfer function described in Equation 3-3 (in Chapter 3). A
shear wave velocity term does not appear in Equations 4-5 because the Vs terms
cancel in the expression for b0 in Equation 3-3. The resulting RRS curves for base-
slab averaging are shown in Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-5 Ratios of response spectra (uFIM/ug) for base slab averaging using
the semi-empirical formulation adopted in FEMA 440.
For embedment, the RRS in Equations 4-6 match Equation 3-4 (in Chapter 3) after
re-writing in terms of period, T, instead of angular frequency, . In FEMA 440, the
limiting period, fL, is taken as 5 Hz (0.2 sec). As of this writing, these equations are
in the process of being revised in the next version of ASCE/SEI 41 (ASCE, 2013) to
reflect the recommendations contained in Chapter 3 of this report.
In FEMA 440, the objective of the damping analysis is to estimate the foundation
damping ratio, f, which is then combined with the fixed-base structural damping
ratio, i, to estimate 0 using Equation 4-4 (with n = 3). The principal challenge is to
extract f from the results of the pushover analysis of the structure in both its fixed-
base and flexible-base condition. As described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3,
foundation flexibility can significantly reduce radiation damping (yy) from rotational
vibration modes, which is considered in the FEMA 440 procedures.

First, the period lengthening ratio at small displacements is estimated using the initial
stiffness of capacity diagrams for the fixed-base and flexible-base structures.
Assuming shaking in the x-direction, stiffness Kx is then evaluated using equations in
Table 2-2 (the dynamic stiffness modifier, x, is assumed as unity). The effective
rotational stiffness of the foundation system is then evaluated from a manipulation of
Equation 2-7 as follows:
K *fixed h 2
K yy  (4-7)
 T 
2
K *fixed
   1 
T  Kx
*
where K fixed is the equivalent fixed-base stiffness of the structure evaluated from:
 2 
2
K *
fixed M  (4-8)
 T 
Note that dynamic stiffness modifier, yy, is also taken as unity. The value of Kyy
estimated from Equation 4-7 reflects the stiffness of the foundation structural
elements as implemented in the pushover analysis, so no assumptions of foundation
rigidity are required.
The next step is to reduce the period lengthening ratio from the small-displacement
condition to the large-displacement (i.e., post-yield) condition (with elongated
periods). Taking  as the expected ductility demand for the system (including
structure and soil effects), the effective period lengthening in the post-yield state is
computed as:
0.5
 T   1  T  2  
   1     1  (4-9)
 T  eff    T   
This effective period lengthening ratio can then be used with Figure 4-2 to estimate
the foundation damping ratio, f.
4.3 Response History Procedures
Most of the resources listed at the beginning of this chapter (e.g., ATC-40, FEMA
440, FEMA P-750, ASCE/SEI 41-06, and ASCE/SEI 7-10) are silent on the
implementation of SSI effects in response history analyses. Similar to ASCE/SEI
7-10 (Section 12.13), they permit the use of soil springs in principal, but offer no
specific guidance on how the springs should be selected or utilized in a response
history analysis.
The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Guidelines for

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (PEER, 2010) recommends a

response history substructure analysis procedure similar to the approach described in
this report. However, the specification of input motions and the distribution of
springs and dashpots, as depicted in Figure 1-2 (in Chapter 1), are simplified to
streamline response history analysis, as shown in Figure 4-6. Two idealizations of
the SSI system are recommended in the PEER Guidelines, depending on the level of
earthquake shaking intensity, identified as the: (1) service level earthquake (SLE);
and (2) maximum considered earthquake (MCE).
Figure 4-6 Schematic illustration of a tall building with subterranean levels:

(a) complete system; (b) simplified model for service-level earthquake intensity;
and (c) simplified foundation model for maximum considered earthquake
intensity.
Subterranean levels are modeled in both the SLE and MCE analyses, including the
mass, stiffness, and structural capacities of structural elements such as walls,
columns, and slabs. Response history analysis for the SLE (Figure 4-6b), is
performed with a relatively simple model that omits the surrounding soil and does not
include soil springs. Response history analysis for the MCE (Figure 4-6c), is
performed with springs and dashpots representing soil-foundation interaction along
basement walls and below the base slab. In this case, ground motions are applied to a
rigid “bathtub” surrounding the subterranean portions of the structure. In both the
SLE and MCE analyses, the motion applied at the base of the model can be either the
free-field motion (ug) or the foundation input motion (uFIM). These recommendations
are derived largely from the recommendations of Naeim et al. (2008).
Procedures for calculating spring stiffnesses and capacities are not specified in the
PEER Guidelines, but can be taken as those from Chapter 2 of this report. Similarly,
foundation input motions can be modified from free-field motions using the
procedures in Chapter 3 of this report.
4.4 Nuclear Structures
Guidance for the seismic analysis of nuclear safety-related facilities in the United
States is provided in ASCE 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear

Structures and Commentary (ASCE, 2000). This standard was developed mainly for
non-reactor nuclear structures, and at the time of this writing, is currently under
revision. ASCE 4-98 is a companion to ASCE/SEI 43-05, Seismic Design Criteria
for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities (ASCE, 2005), which
is used as a reference standard for submittal of combined operating license
applications (COLAs) for new reactors.
Both the direct analysis and substructure approaches for SSI described in Chapter 1
are permitted under ASCE 4-98. Provisions related to response history analyses as
well as equivalent lateral force-based analyses are included. Referring to Figure 1-2
(in Chapter 1), consideration of kinematic interaction effects, foundation flexibility,
and damping are included. ASCE 4-98 does not consider base slab averaging effects,
but it does consider embedment effects. The foundation input motion adjusted for
embedment effects is referred to as the Foundation Input Response Spectra (FIRS),
which is computed for the free-field conditions at the foundation level using wave
propagation analysis (de-convolution). The procedure in the upcoming version of
ASCE 4 (ASCE, in preparation) will also allow for base-slab averaging through
response history analysis, in which the input motion is specified with a defined
coherency function, as described in Section 3.1, using software such as SASSI
(Ostadan et al., 2005).
Soil-foundation flexibility is represented using spring-based solutions (CLASSI,

Wong, 1979) or equivalent-linear elastic solid finite elements (SASSI, Lysmer et al.,
1999). As such, the procedures for nuclear structures have generally been based on
elasto-dynamic solutions of the soil-structure interaction problem.

Chapter 5
Experiments and Case Studies
Testing has played a relatively minor role in the research and evolution of soil-
structure interaction. For the most part, research has been dominated by numerical
analysis exercises. The models developed from numerical and theoretical studies,
however, apply for idealized conditions, so testing and seismic monitoring play a
vital role in guiding the implementation of idealized models in practice.
This chapter identifies and reviews experiments and case studies available in the
literature. Information is separated into field-scale and laboratory-scale tests, which
typically have different objectives and different applications. Tests involving
shallow foundations and dynamic loading are emphasized. Results from tests
identified in this chapter, where applicable, have been interpreted for use in SSI
modeling in other chapters of this report.
5.1 Seismic Monitoring and Field Tests
Seismic monitoring and field testing of structures is generally performed with one of
two objectives: (1) evaluation of system properties such as the fundamental mode
period and damping of an SSI system; or (2) estimation of foundation impedance
ordinates representing the stiffness and damping characteristics of soil-foundation
interaction.
5.1.1 System Studies
In system studies, seismic data from well-instrumented buildings are used in system
identification analyses to estimate modal vibration parameters. To evaluate SSI
effects, input-output pairs must be selected that isolate the system behavior
associated with the structure alone (fixed-base properties) and the full system
(flexible-base properties), as described in Stewart and Fenves (1998). Results can
then be compared to period lengthening and foundation damping models of the type
described in Section 2.1. Stewart et al. (1999a; 1999b), for example, describe the
results of such analyses and lessons learned regarding the practical application of
impedance functions for rigid circular foundations.
System studies can also be undertaken using forced-vibration tests (e.g., Yu et al.,
2005). The input-output pairs that should be used for evaluation of fixed- and
flexible-base properties are given by Tileylioglu (2008). No major study applying
these techniques to evaluate period lengthening and foundation damping has been
completed to date.
GCR 12-917-21 5: Experiments and Case Studies 5-1

5.1.2 Field Experiments for Foundation Impedance
Experimental investigations of impedance functions typically seek to evaluate

stiffness and damping terms for horizontal translation (j = x or y) and rotation within
the vertical plane (j = xx or yy). Cyclic excitation is generally provided by a shaker
installed on the roof or foundation of a structure. Table 5-1 summarizes field forced-
vibration experiments of this type. Analysis procedures for evaluation of foundation
impedance from recordings of structural vibrations are provided in Tileylioglu et al.
(2011).
Table 5-1 Summary of Field Forced-Vibration Tests Used to Evaluate Foundation Impedance
Functions
Excitation Results
Foundation Embed. Vs Freq. Range Impedance Freq. Range

Dimensions (m) (1) f1 (Hz) (2) (m/s)(3) Source (Hz) (4) T / T (5)
Obtained (Hz) (4) Reference
Lin and
shaker on 1.3 (D=1.5); modal freq.
33m 0 to 1.5 17.5 305 7 to 70 kx, cx, kyy, cyy Jennings
ground 1.5 (D = 0) only
(1984)
Luco et al.
NS: 2.16; shaker on NS: 0.8 to 2.5; NS: 1.06; NS: 0.8-2.5;
2525m 4 to 5.5 300 kx, cx, kyy, cyy (1988); Wong
EW: 1.26 roof EW: 0.8 to 1.75 EW: 1.1 EW: 0.8-1.75
et al. (1988)
1.33m; shaker on Crouse et al.
0 n/a 120; 75 10 to 60 n/a kx, cx, kyy, cyy 0 to 60
1.21.1m fndn. (1990)
shaker on kx, cx, kyy,

de Barros and
diam. = 10.8m 5.2 9.37 300 roof and 2 to 20 2 cyykx-yy 5 to 14
Luco (1995)
fndn. cx‐yy, kz, cz
shaker on Tileylioglu et
4.14.1m 0 6.0, 13 198 5 to 15 1.15, 1.29 kx, cx, kyy, cyy 5 to 15
roof al. (2011)
Notes: (1) Foundation embedment depth; (2) Fundamental mode, fixed-base frequency; (3) Vs=Shear wave velocity of soil;
(4) Frequency range; and (5) Period lengthening.
Symbols: D=embedment depth; n/a=not available; NS=North-South building axis; EW=East-West building axis;
diam=diameter; and fndn=foundation.
The first field investigations of foundation impedance provided results over a limited
range of frequencies (Lin and Jennings, 1984; Luco et al., 1988; Wong et al., 1988)
or for very small structures representative of strong motion instrument huts (Crouse
et al., 1990). More recently, de Barros and Luco (1995) tested a relatively large
model structure (of a nuclear reactor) and provided impedance ordinates over a
relatively wide frequency range (approximately 4 Hz to 20 Hz). Figure 5-1 shows
impedance ordinates evaluated by de Barros and Luco. Results are shown in non-
normalized form due to uncertainty in the shear modulus of the foundation soils, and
illustrate the noisy character of the data, especially at frequencies under 4 Hz or
greater than 14 Hz. Also shown in Figure 5-1 are three model predictions for
5-2 5: Experiments and Case Studies GCR 12-917-21

stiffness and damping, caused by uncertainty in the appropriate value for shear wave
velocity, Vs.
Figure 5-1 Non-normalized impedance values from experimental data compared with theoretical
predictions for a nuclear containment structure at Hualien, Taiwan for translational (top)
and rotational (bottom) modes (adapted from de Barros and Luco, 1995).
Two practical difficulties associated with field testing for impedance ordinates and
comparison to model predictions have been encountered in the previous work. First,
limited resolution of the data acquisition system with respect to analogue-to-digital
signal conversion and time-stamping contribute significantly to noise in the results.
Most previous studies have not formally evaluated noise effects, which can lead to
spurious results (e.g., impedance ordinates in Figure 5-1 for frequencies outside the
4 Hz to 14 Hz range). Second, shear wave velocity profiles have generally been
established using downhole or suspension logging methods in the free-field.
Use of downhole or suspension logging methods can have limited resolution very
near the ground surface (e.g., Andrus et al., 2004). Because the soil materials
immediately below the foundation exert the greatest influence on foundation
stiffness, this introduces uncertainty in the selection of an appropriate value of Vs for

use with numerical solutions. Also, seismic velocities measured in the free field
neglect the effect of confinement provided by the weight of the structure. Although
this can be corrected using the procedures given in Section 2.2.2, this has seldom
been done in prior field experiments.
The final study listed in Table 5-1 overcame many of the practical difficulties
encountered in previous work through the use of high-fidelity, modern sensors and
data acquisition equipment available through the NEES@UCSB equipment site
(http://nees.ucsb.edu/). Seismic velocities were measured immediately adjacent to
the foundation so that they incorporated overburden effects. Sample results are
shown in Figure 5-2, and the data are observed to be numerically stable across the
range of tested frequencies. Stronger damping was evident in the translational versus
the rotational vibration modes, and radiation damping was a significant contributor in
each case.
(a) (b)
Figure 5-2 Normalized impedance values from experimental data compared with
theoretical predictions for the Garner Valley site for: (a) translational; and
(b) rotational modes (adapted from Tileylioglu et al., 2011). Velocity, Vsm,
and modulus, Gm, denote median values from test data.

5.1.3 Field Experiments for Nuclear Applications
Field tests have been supported by nuclear regulatory agencies in the United States
and abroad to provide data that can be used to validate analysis procedures, such as
CLASSI (Wong, 1979) and SASSI (Lysmer et al, 1999), commonly used for nuclear
reactor structures. In one case (Hualien site in Taiwan), these experiments can be
used to infer impedance functions. Such cases were presented above and are not
repeated here (de Barros and Luco, 1995). Following is a discussion of three similar
experiments:
 Lotung, Taiwan. This experiment utilized a ¼-scale containment model
constructed in Lotung, Taiwan. The objective of the study was to validate SSI
analysis methodologies. The Lotung model was a cylindrical structure with a
total height of 15 m and embedment depth of 4.5 m. The free-field, structure,
and internal components were instrumented to record motions and pressures at
the soil-foundation interface. Earthquakes recorded in 1986 were used for
subsequent analyses. The model reactor was installed in a soft soil site with
measured shear wave velocities, shear moduli, and damping curves with shear
strain. The data were used in a blind prediction exercise (Ostadan et al., 1991).
Because the data consisted of earthquake recordings and not controlled
experiments, it was not practical to directly identify impedance functions across a
significant frequency range, as described in Section 5.1.2.
Findings from the Lotung experiments included information on the relative

accuracy of different software packages (SASSI provided favorable results), the
effects of soil nonlinearity as manifested in the fundamental frequency of the
structure (which is dominated by rocking), and the application of one-
dimensional wave propagation analyses to evaluate the free-field motions at the
foundation depth through de-convolution.
 Aomori, Japan. In 1994, the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC)
initiated a multi-year test program in Aomori Prefecture in northern Japan. This
experiment investigated the effects of foundation-soil-foundation interaction of
proximate structures. The test consisted of three building conditions: (1) a single
reactor building as a reference for comparison; (2) closely spaced twin reactor
buildings; and (3) a reactor and turbine building in close proximity. With due
consideration of soil property uncertainty, SASSI was able to replicate the
principal test results (Xu et al., 2003).
 Blast Testing at Gillette, Wyoming. In 2004 and 2005, the Japan Nuclear
Safety Organization (JNES) performed a series of blast tests in the Black
Thunder mines in Gillette, Wyoming (Nie et al., 2008). The experiments
included a model of a 3-story concrete structure in close proximity to the mine.
Recorded motions at the site ranged from peak ground acceleration (PGA) of less

than 0.1g to more than 1.0g. Analyses were conducted by JNES using the soil
spring approach, SASSI, and LS-DYNA (Livermore Software Technology
Corporation). The objective of the study was to create uplift and study the effect
of uplift on SSI results. The main findings were as follows:
a. Uplift was initiated with a horizontal PGA of about 0.15g and vertical PGA
of about 0.12g.
b. The contact ratio (the foundation area in contact with soil over the total
foundation area) dropped to 65% at a horizontal PGA of 0.45g and vertical
PGA of 0.41g.
c. Linear analysis over-predicted the extent of the uplift.
d. Analyses that included soil nonlinearity resulted in lesser uplift than linear
analyses.
A number of additional tests have been performed with information relevant to

seismic earth pressures on retaining walls. Further reports on this topic are presented
in Ostadan and White (1998) and Ostadan (2005).
5.2 Laboratory-Scale Tests
Laboratory-scale investigations of soil-foundation interaction have been performed

on various configurations using shake-table, free vibration, and centrifuge excitation.
Several of these tests are summarized in Table 5-2. Laboratory-scale tests are useful
for examining frequency-dependent foundation stiffness terms and nonlinear soil-
foundation interaction. In recent years centrifuge tests have been used to guide the
development of macro-element models for nonlinear soil-foundation interaction of
the type described in Section 2.4.
However, laboratory tests are limited in their ability to reproduce certain field
conditions (e.g., Novak, 1987). For example, the finite size of a laboratory test
container precludes radiation damping of waves with quarter-wavelengths on the
order of the container dimension. This is illustrated in Figure 5-3, which shows
theoretical model-based damping ratios increasing with foundation size, whereas the
experimental data show essentially constant damping ratio at the hysteretic (material)
damping level. The difference is due to radiation damping that is present in the
theoretical model, but not in the experiments, due to the small size of the laboratory
container.

Table 5-2 Summary of Laboratory-Scale Tests of Dynamic Response of Footings
Parameters and Details Excitation Testing Information
Foundation Soil Depth and

Dimensions Emb. Container
(model Structure Depth g- Soil Dimensions Motion Data
scale) Description (cm) Level Parameters (cm) Source Analyzed Availability Reference
h=45.7cm
square/rec.
moist sand; applied static vertical, Dobry et al.
B=5.6 to level ground
force at top of torsion, (1986)
13.3 cm concrete =0.33; D=152.4
0 1 block and coupled Report Erden (1974)
L=B-6B block =121 pcf; 2B=304.8
suddenly swaying- Stokoe and
circle s=0.025 2L=304.8
released rocking Erden (1985)
radius=14.9cm
h=45.9 to
46.7cm moist sand; applied static Gazetas and
level ground vertical,
square/rec. force at top of Stokoe (1991)
concrete ~7.5 to =0.33; D=152.4 coupled
B=5.6-13.3 cm 1 block and Report Erden (1974)
block 18.8 =121 pcf; 2B=304.8 swaying-
L=B-6B suddenly Stokoe and
circle s=0.025 2L=304.8
released
rocking
Erden (1985)
radius=14.9cm
vertical,
aluminum level ground base/sidewall
h=2.8cm Dry, No. 120 torsion,
block D=35.6 shear and Downloadable Gadre and
B=1.9cm 3.8 30 Nevada sand coupled
1cm below 2B=61.0 passive/active data; report Dobry (1998)
L=1.9cm Dr=75% swaying-
surface 2L=91.4 force
rocking
Nevada sand applied slow
level ground
h=50.8cm double Dr=60 to 80% sinusoidal Rosebrook and
D=53.0 Downloadable
B=1.73cm aluminum 0 to 1.5 20 and cyclic force rocking Kutter (2001a,
2B=90.0 data; report
L=6.68cm shear walls bay mud and dynamic 2001b, 2001c)
2L=175.0
Cu=100 kPa base shaking
applied slow
h=48.6cm level ground
sinusoidal
B=2.5 to single wall Nevada sand D=53.0 Downloadable Chang et al.
2.5 20 cyclic force rocking
1.73cm with frame Dr=80% 2B=90.0 data; report (2007)
and dynamic
L=2.5 to 7.1cm 2L=175.0
base shaking
applied slow
sinusoidal
B=13.5 to Nevada sand D=53.0 Downloadable
bridge pier 8.6 20 cyclic force rocking Ugalde (2007)
17.75cm Dr=80% 2B=90.0 data; report
and dynamic
L=13.5 to 2L=175.0
base shaking
17.75cm
saturated; applied vertical,
level ground
steel base dense sand sinusoidal torsion, Ghosh and
D=22.0
radius=1.5cm plate with 0 50 (Dr=85%) over cyclic force coupled Report Madabhushi
2B=23.5
dual dome loose sand (freq=50Hz swaying- (2007)
2L=56.0
(Dr=45%) for 500ms) rocking
single and Nevada sand applied slow
double rigid Dr=60 to 80% sinusoidal
B=1.63cm D=53.0 Downloadable Gajan and
steel or 0 to 7 20 and cyclic force rocking
L=6.75 to 2B=90.0 data; report Kutter (2008)
aluminum bay mud and dynamic
7.0cm 2L=175.0
shear wall Cu=100 kPa base shaking
Symbols: 2L=total length; 2B=total width; h=height; g-level=gravity load multiplier applied while testing; D=embedment depth; =Poisson's ratio;
=unit weight of soil; s=soil damping ratio; Dr = relative density of sand; and Cu = undrained shear strength of clay.

Figure 5-3 Comparison of damping ratio of vibrating blocks of various sizes
predicted using impedance models for a half-space and measured
from free-vibration tests on laboratory-scale models (Dobry et
al.,1986, with permission from ASCE).

Chapter 6
State of Practice
Substantial research has been available for many years, yet there is relatively limited
implementation of soil-structure interaction in engineering practice. There is often a
lag between the state of knowledge and the state of practice, and this has proven to be
particularly true in the case of soil-structure interaction. Even among relatively
experienced practitioners, it is clear that there is room for improvement in the
technical approaches used in SSI modeling, as well as the manner in which structural
engineers, geotechnical engineers, engineering seismologists, and other design and
construction professionals interact with each other on projects involving soil-
structure interaction.
This chapter summarizes general observations on the state of the practice with regard
to modeling soil-structure interaction effects on building structures, and makes
specific recommendations for the process of communication and collaboration
between design professionals. As a result, the intended audience for this chapter is
wider than it is for other chapters in this report, and includes owners, project
managers, architects, construction managers, and others who are involved in
managing, designing, and constructing the built environment.
6.1 Overview
The state of the practice with regard to SSI was discussed informally and anecdotally
with selected structural engineers, geotechnical engineers, and members of the
project team. Design professionals engaged in these discussions represented small
and large firms with different backgrounds, levels of experience, and geographic
locations. Collectively their experience covered a wide range of building sizes,
occupancy types, and structural materials. Comments attributed to geotechnical
engineers may also be related to engineering seismologists that are providing
recommendations as part of the geotechnical engineering scope of services, either as
a member of the geotechnical engineering firm, as a subconsultant, or as an
independent consultant on projects.
6.2 Observations
This section synthesizes observations of the state of practice related to general issues,
collaboration between design professionals, information needed and shared,
understanding of SSI principles, and implementation in terms of SSI analyses, soil
springs, and common approaches to design problems.
GCR 12-917-21 6: State of Practice 6-1

6.2.1 General Observations
Key general observations include:

 The dialogue between structural and geotechnical engineers varies widely, both
in extent and sophistication. It appears that an increase in the amount of
collaboration would be beneficial, as would better understanding of what each
discipline does, and needs, and why. Many geotechnical engineers, for example,
are not sure how their recommendations are ultimately being used, and often do
not know whether or not their recommendations are being properly implemented.
 In many cases, static and dynamic springs for modeling soil properties are not
being consistently or properly developed by geotechnical engineers, nor are they
being consistently or properly implemented by structural engineers.
 Understanding of SSI principles is fairly limited among structural engineers, and
is usually limited to application of vertical foundation springs. A broader
implementation of SSI techniques is rare, and there is virtually no use of
foundation damping in any explicit way.
 For typical foundation situations, there is no consensus among structural
engineers on the best modeling approaches to use.
 SSI has been used in design of new buildings and in seismic retrofit of existing
buildings, although there appears to be greater implementation of SSI in projects
involving existing buildings, often as part of performance-based designs or
assessments.
6.2.2 Collaboration Between Design Professionals
There is significant variation in the amount of communication and collaboration

between structural engineers and geotechnical engineers on typical projects. On
some projects, there are few, if any, meetings or direct conversations. On other
projects, there is substantial discussion, with several meetings to explore issues and
possible approaches and solutions. Some geotechnical engineers express frustration
that they provide information and recommendations, but they do not have any role in
confirming how their work is used, or whether the final approaches implemented by
the design team are appropriate.
On most projects, structural engineers are engaged by the architect, but geotechnical
engineers are engaged by the building owner. This arrangement is primarily the
result of a perceived increase in liability for geotechnical engineering, and the
reluctance of architects, and their professional liability insurers, to engage
geotechnical engineers as subconsultants. As a result, geotechnical engineers are not
directly managed by the architect as lead design professional, and geotechnical
6-2 6: State of Practice GCR 12-917-21

engineers are typically not part of formal design team meetings arranged by the
architect.
There is also an issue of timing. In some cases, geotechnical engineering work is

substantially complete by the time design work begins in earnest. Most importantly,
however, is an issue related to cost. The fee structure on a typical design project does
not allow for multiple design iterations or the use of unfamiliar analytical techniques.
This discourages the use of SSI because of a potential increases in design time, even
when it could result in significant savings in construction costs.
A need for increased communication and collaboration between engineering

disciplines seems particularly important in light of limited experience in SSI
implementation, and lack of clear standards of practice.
6.2.3 Information Needed by the Structural Engineer
Structural engineers routinely seek a common set of information from geotechnical

engineers on most projects. This includes a description of the soil and rock
characteristics at the site, geotechnical hazards that need to be mitigated, and
recommendations on appropriate foundation systems. Specific information requested
often includes: design bearing pressures under footings; estimates of predicted
settlements; at rest, active and passive lateral pressures; coefficients for sliding;
vertical and lateral capacities for deep foundations; expected site seismicity; and soil
profile type. Depending on the size, nature and sophistication of the project,
additional information is often needed, including shoring and underpinning
recommendations, force-displacement relationships or springs to represent vertical
and horizontal soil properties, site specific spectra, and response histories.
Traditionally, base-slab averaging and embedment effects have not been considered,
and this information is not regularly requested. With the publication of FEMA 440,
Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA, 2005) and
other subsequent engineering resources, structural engineers are beginning to take
advantage of these effects on new projects, and are beginning to request related
design information.
Although there are consistent needs on many projects, few structural engineers report
the availability of checklists, or other standardized lists, to assist in organizing and
requesting the geotechnical information necessary for foundation design or SSI
modeling. A sample checklist of geotechnical information needed by the structural
engineer would be considered a useful aid.
6.2.4 Information Needed by the Geotechnical Engineer
Geotechnical engineers can provide better recommendations when they have more
detailed information on which to base them. In addition to information from soil

borings and other critical soil data, necessary basic information includes structural
design information such as the location of the building on the site, the governing
building code, the anticipated height and footprint, the presence of a basement, and
the potential structural and foundation systems being considered. A plan of column
locations along with anticipated column loading, if available, is useful. Tolerances
for differential settlement in the superstructure are valuable, and it is important to
know if uplift on foundations is anticipated. The need for site-specific spectra versus
response histories must be communicated so the geotechnical scope of work can
include their preparation.
If consideration of SSI effects is anticipated, necessary additional information

includes details on what type of springs will be used and the approximate building
fundamental period. To assist in preparing an appropriate scope of work and in
improving dialogue between disciplines, a sample checklist of structural design
information needed by the geotechnical engineer is considered a valuable aid.
6.2.5 Understanding of Soil-Structure Interaction Principles
Understanding of SSI principles varies widely across both the structural and
geotechnical engineering disciplines. Most structural engineers can appreciate that
SSI effects are more pronounced in soft soils, and many are aware that foundation
input motions can differ from free-field ground motions. Although SSI effects are
known to be significant on stiff, squat, shorter-period buildings, many practitioners
mistakenly believe that SSI would have a larger effect on taller, flexible, longer-
period buildings.
Structural engineers associate several benefits with modeling of SSI effects. By

including the soil in the modeling process, engineers can gain a better understanding
of the distribution of forces and displacements in the structure, and additional insight
into the foundation design. Some structural engineers are taking advantage of the
potential for lowering structural design forces through period lengthening, base-slab
averaging, and embedment effects, however, use of foundation damping, and the
corresponding reduction in design forces, is typically not being considered.
6.2.6 Analysis Procedures
Analysis procedures used to address seismic loading include equivalent lateral force
procedures, modal response spectrum analysis procedures, nonlinear static
(pushover) procedures, and nonlinear response history procedures. Although there is
increasing use of nonlinear procedures in design, response history analyses are
performed by a minority of structural engineers, and among that minority, response
history analyses are performed on a relatively small percentage of projects. Currently
available codes, standards, and guidelines provide SSI provisions for force-based
procedures (e.g., equivalent lateral force and response spectrum analysis) and

displacement-based procedures (e.g., static pushover-type analyses), however, little
or no guidance is provided for implementing SSI in response history analysis
procedures (see Chapter 4).
Typically, SSI is limited to implementing springs as boundary conditions

representing flexibility of the soil-foundation interface in the model. Finite element
modeling of the soil continuum is almost never performed in routine building design
practice.
Most software packages commonly used in building design have the ability to
include uniaxial springs representing support flexibility. However, some are not able
to model compression-only properties that might be appropriate for non-embedded
(i.e., surface) foundations. More sophisticated programs can vary the compression
and tension properties of the springs, and permit bilinear or tri-linear force-
displacement relationships. Multi-support excitation is difficult to implement and is
not widely available in commonly used structural engineering software, though it is
available in programs such as OpenSees (McKenna, 1997).
6.2.7 Implementation of Foundation Springs
Vertical springs are almost always used in the design of mat foundations in order to
properly understand the distribution of design forces in the mat. This is typically
done with a single modulus of subgrade reaction representing long-term settlement
properties of the supporting soil. Use of springs under gravity load-carrying grade
beams is also relatively frequent. Springs are occasionally placed beneath spread
footings, strip footings, grade beams, piles, and piers. To a lesser extent, they are
used to model the combination of soil and foundation vertical flexibility (e.g.,
individual piles or pile groups).
In comparison, horizontal springs are much less frequently used. In rare cases, they
are used on piers and piles to understand the distribution of lateral forces to the
foundation elements, particularly if the foundation consists of different systems with
different stiffnesses. Horizontal springs are infrequently used to represent the passive
pressure developed on the sides of pile caps, grade beams, or retaining walls.
Most structural engineers rely on geotechnical engineers to provide soil spring

properties. When values are not provided, or when structural engineers to confirm
values that are provided, they refer to engineering resources such as FEMA 356,
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA,
2000) or its successor document, ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2007), which provide guidance on default soil properties
and equations for static spring stiffnesses. A few structural engineers also use rule-
of-thumb checks based on practical experience. Most structural engineers, however,

do not know the basis of spring values provided by the geotechnical engineer, and the
basis is often not stated in the geotechnical report.
Often the modulus of subgrade reaction, given for long-term gravity loading, is used
as the basis for dynamic loading conditions. This can lead to significant
underestimation of soil stiffness during dynamic loading, and significant
overestimation of the amount of displacement and rotation caused by the deflecting
soil. The cause for this appears to be a lack of understanding about the differences
between long-term and short-term loading effects on soil, a lack of clarity on what is
needed by the structural engineer, and a lack of understanding of the limits of the
information the geotechnical engineer is providing.
When foundation springs are used, practice varies on the extent to which uncertainty
is used to bound expected soil properties. Resources like FEMA 356 and ASCE/SEI
41-06 specify a range of two times the expected values to one-half of the expected
values, but this is dependent on the variability in site conditions and scatter of
material properties. Some structural engineers use a simple, conservative upper
bound assuming a fixed base (or an essentially infinitely rigid spring). Others modify
the spring values provided by the geotechnical engineer in some way. The best result
is obtained when the geotechnical engineer provides upper- and lower-bounds around
expected values. This usually narrows the bounds recommended by FEMA 356 and
ASCE/SEI 41-06, but is dependent on the variability in site conditions and scatter
present in measured soil properties.
When force-displacement relationships are provided for dynamic loading conditions,

a maximum or ultimate capacity is frequently provided, allowing an elasto-plastic
relationship to be developed. When this is not directly provided, safety factors are
occasionally given, permitting back-calculation of the plateau value. Some
geotechnical reports, however, remain fully in the allowable stress design format in
which safety factors are used but not reported. This situation prevents a rational
investigation of SSI effects at higher seismic force levels.
For deep foundations such as piles or piers, different stiffnesses are occasionally
provided for tension and for compression. Lateral springs are typically developed
using common commercial software programs that provide the displacement, shear,
and moment profile considering the variation in soil properties over the depth of the
element.
6.2.8 Modeling Approaches for Common Design Situations
Modeling approaches vary depending on the configuration of the building, the

presence of a basement, and the level of the supporting grade.

Embedded Buildings
Figure 6-1 illustrates a common situation of a building with a basement that is

surrounded by soil with a level grade on all sides. Several potential modeling
strategies that can be used to analyze such a building are shown in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-1 Illustration of an embedded building configuration with a basement

surrounded by soil and a level grade on all sides.
Figure 6-2 Modeling approaches for embedded foundations.

Of the modeling approaches illustrated in Figure 6-2, there was no consensus on the
best approach, or even the most common approach in design practice. Observations
include the following:
 Model 1. In this approach, the building is assumed to be fixed at the ground
level, and no SSI effects are considered. Reactions are calculated at the base of
the model at grade, and then applied to the foundation in a separate model. This
approach is used occasionally by some engineers, and frequently by others.
Some believe this model is more appropriate for moment frame and braced frame
buildings, and less appropriate for shear wall buildings. Others would only use
this model if there were no “back-stay effects.” Back-stay effects occur when the
lateral system of the superstructure does not align with the full footprint of the
foundation. An example of such a configuration is a superstructure with a
concrete shear wall core system founded on a wider basement podium structure
with perimeter walls. Backstay effects involve the transfer of lateral forces in the
superstructure into additional elements that exist within the basement, typically
through one or more floor diaphragms. This force transfer helps tall buildings
resist overturning effects, and is referred to as the backstay effect because of its
similarity to the back-span of a cantilever beam.
The added stiffness of the retaining walls, and the relative rigidity of the walls
and diaphragms comprising the basement, can lead to larger shear forces in the
basement levels than in the superstructure. Modeling of the in-plane flexibility
of the basement diaphragms can provide more rational results for this effect.
When the lateral force-resisting system of the superstructure covers the full
footprint of the basement, the backstay effect is reduced or eliminated.
 Model 2. In this approach, the soil on the sides of the retaining walls is ignored,
but the basement structure is explicitly included in the model. The lowest
basement level is taken as the base of the model. It is argued that the amount of
movement required to develop passive pressure of any significance far exceeds
the amount of movement anticipated in the basement retaining walls, so the
retained earth can be conservatively ignored. One variation of this model
(Model 2A) has a fixed base. A second variation of this model (Model 2B) has
vertical springs under the foundation. Model 2A is occasionally used, though
limited by some to the preliminary design phases of their projects. Model 2B is
used more frequently, though some use both Model 1 and Model 2B to bound
their analyses for design.
 Model 3. In this approach, horizontal springs are used to capture the effect of the
surrounding soil. The ends of the springs are fixed against translation, and
ground motion is input at the base of the model. When this modeling approach is
used, it is used in pushover analyses. One variation of this model (Model 3A) is
fixed vertically. A second variation of this model (Model 3B) includes vertical

springs. Model 3A is used occasionally by some, while Model 3B is used more
frequently. Some engineers never use either version of this modeling approach.
 Model 4. In this approach, horizontal springs are attached to rigid walls (referred
to as a “bathtub”), and the ground motion is applied to the bathtub so that the
ends of the horizontal springs all move together with the input motion. This
modeling approach is rarely used, although it is recommended in the recent
Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (PEER,
2010).
 Full Substructure Model (MB). This modeling approach is designated the
Baseline Model (or MB). It represents a comprehensive modeling approach in
which dashpots are used to address soil damping variation, foundation rotation is
considered, and multi-support excitation is applied through the horizontal springs
so that the inputs vary up the height of the basement walls. This model is not
currently used in practice.
Partially Embedded Buildings with Unbalanced Loading
Figure 6-3 illustrates a building with a basement that does not have retained earth on
one or more sides. In this situation, the loading caused by the soil pressure on one
side of the building is typically analyzed separately and added to the building inertial
loading by linear superposition. Structural engineers report the use of Models 2A,
2B, 3A, and 3B, as shown in Figure 6-2, for modeling partially embedded buildings.
Figure 6-3 Illustration of a partially embedded building configuration with

unbalanced loading.
Buildings without a Basement
Figure 6-4 shows a building without a basement. Structural engineers report the use
of different modeling approaches for buildings without a basement, depending on the
type of foundation system:

 For mat foundations, Model 2B is typically used. Note that Model 4 is
equivalent to Model 2B when the foundation is not embedded.
 For spread footings, both Models 1 and 2B (equivalent to Model 4) are used.
 For grade beams, both Models 1 and 2B (equivalent to Model 4) are used.
 For drilled piers or piles, Model 2B (equivalent to Model 4) is frequently used.
Figure 6-4 Illustration of a building configuration without a basement.
6.3 Recommendations
Based on the above observations, recommendations for improving the

implementation of SSI include:
 Enhanced techniques for improving dialogue and collaboration between
structural engineers and geotechnical engineers.
 A sample checklist of information that the structural engineer should consider
providing to the geotechnical engineer.
 A sample checklist of information needed by the structural engineer, which
should be requested from the geotechnical engineer.
 Sample formats for presentation of static and dynamic spring parameters.
 Guidance on modeling approaches applied to typical foundation design
situations, with recommendations for practice.
 Example applications showing the benefits and drawbacks associated with
simplified SSI modeling approaches.
6.3.1 Improved Collaboration Between Structural and Geotechnical

Engineers
Better clarity on the part of structural engineers with regard to the modeling approach
for the soil and foundation will help geotechnical engineers provide better
recommendations. Having a defined number of meetings between the geotechnical
and structural engineers will improve communication and help ensure proper
development and implementation of foundation recommendations.

Some owners require geotechnical reports to be written in stages, including an initial
draft to help foster communication, and then later drafts or a final report after the
design is further along and needs are better defined. For example, an initial draft
memo might broadly define the various possible foundation systems, and give
preliminary design values. Once the final system is selected (or narrowed down to
final candidates), then detailed recommendations can be presented.
Owners can level the playing field in the competitive market place by clearly
requesting these additional scope items in the proposal. Owners can also coordinate
the timing of consultant selection and engagement so that geotechnical and structural
engineers are on a concurrent project delivery schedule. Some projects might benefit
from a foundation design charrette involving a foundation contractor to discuss
project specific installation issues that can help in refining and improving the design.
6.3.2 Checklist of Information That Should be Provided to

Geotechnical Engineers
Certain information is needed by the geotechnical engineer to develop foundation

design recommendation and provide the necessary information for modeling SSI
effects. This information is often provided by the structural engineer, though other
members of the design team (e.g., architect or owner’s representative) can supply
much of the information. A sample checklist of items includes the following:
1. Location. Identify the site and the proposed location of the building on the site.
2. Building Code. Identify the building code, standard, or design guideline that will
be used on the project.
3. Performance Objectives. If performance-based design will be used, identify the
guidelines that are proposed and the specific performance objectives, acceptance
criteria, and hazard levels that are being considered.
4. Description of the Building. Provide a description of the building, including the
number of stories, anticipated height, footprint size, overall square footage,
occupancies, and basement depth. Describe the potential structural and
foundation systems under consideration. Provide drawings if they are available,
particularly a foundation plan or floor plan showing column locations, and a
building section.
5. Differential Settlement Tolerance. Provide special restrictions on differential
settlement, if any, as these can impact foundation system selection.
6. Approximate Fundamental Building Period. If potential structural systems are
known, provide the approximate fundamental building period in each direction.
This is useful in developing recommendations for SSI modeling parameters.

7. Loads to Foundation. If preliminary loads are known, provide values, or a range
of potential values for the following load cases (assuming earthquake governs
over wind). The load combinations listed below are an example list; others
should be provided as relevant for the particular project. Consistent with historic
practice, and much of current practice, allowable stress design combinations are
shown; however, factored loads should be provided when performance-based
design and SSI will be used. Associated capacities are needed, particularly at the
maximum or ultimate load level. Note that both factored level load combinations
and “ultimate” level load combinations are listed, as the associated capacities will
be different at each level.
a. Allowable stress design:
i. D: average and maximum.
ii. D + L: average and maximum.
iii. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.7E): average and maximum compression.
iv. 0.6D + 0.7E: average and maximum tension.
b. Strength design:
i. 1.2D + 1.6L: average and maximum.
ii. 1.2D + E + L: average and maximum compression.
iii. 1.2D + Em + L: maximum ultimate compression.
iv. 0.9D + E: average and maximum tension.
v. 0.9D + Em: maximum ultimate tension.
8. Soil-Structure Interaction. Indicate if SSI is likely to be included in the design
process, along with the level of sophistication of modeling that is anticipated.
Indicate if recommendations on ground motion modification for foundation
embedment and base-slab averaging are needed. Indicate if recommendations for
foundation damping are needed.
9. Site Specific Spectra. Indicate if site specific spectra are needed. Indicate
whether uniform hazard spectra or conditional mean spectra are desired. If the
site is in a known near-fault region, clarify if spectra are needed for fault normal
and fault parallel orientations. If site is known to be on soft soil, particularly Site
Class F, indicate whether ground response analysis of the soil/rock column is
anticipated. If known, indicate whether shear wave velocity measurements for
the site will be needed.
10. Response History Analysis. Indicate if response history analysis is anticipated,
and, if so, how many ground motions are required or desired. Indicate the

preferred scaling technique, such as spectrally matched or amplitude scaled,
where known.
6.3.3 Checklist of Information Needed by Structural Engineers
Certain information is needed by the structural engineer to develop preliminary and

final foundation designs, to perform structural analysis, and to model SSI effects.
Ideally, this information should be requested from the geotechnical engineer prior to
commencement of the geotechnical site investigation. Some of the following items
comprise basic information that is typically included as part of a geotechnical
investigation report, while others will likely be excluded unless specifically
requested. A sample checklist of items includes the following:
1. Site Description. Request a description of the soil and rock conditions at the site.
2. Boring Reference Elevations. Where boring logs summarizing the encountered
soil conditions are presented in terms of depth from the ground surface, request
the ground surface elevation at each boring location with respect to a common
benchmark or datum. A plan of boring locations should also be requested,
preferably showing the existing and new building footprint.
3. Field and Laboratory Testing Results. Request a summary and interpretation of
field and laboratory testing, including shear wave velocities, if they were
measured.
4. Site Seismicity Information. Request information needed for calculation of the
code base shear and site specific response spectrum. Indicate the assumptions
and methodology used to develop the response spectra, including uniform hazard
versus conditional mean spectra, scaling requirements, geomean versus
maximum rotated component assumptions, assumed shear wave velocities,
whether or not site response analysis was conducted, and the type of hazard
model used. Request spectra for fault-normal and fault-parallel orientations, as
appropriate.
5. Response Histories. If response history analysis is required or desired, request
appropriate ground motion acceleration histories. Indicate the assumptions and
methodology used to develop the acceleration histories, such as the scaling
technique (spectrally matched or amplitude scaled, for example), and fault
normal/fault parallel orientation approaches.
6. Seismic Site Hazards. Request assessment of potential for liquefaction, lateral
spreading, and other types of seismic hazard that would affect the structural
design.
7. Groundwater Table. Request information on the design groundwater elevation.

8. Foundation Type Recommendations. Request recommendations for suitable
foundation types given the geotechnical conditions at the site. The following
information is needed for some of the most common foundation types:
a. Mat Foundation:
i. Bearing pressures. Allowable soil bearing pressures under dead, dead
plus live, and dead plus live plus wind/seismic load cases. Request
associated safety factors for each case. Note whether the weight of soil
above the foundation and the equivalent weight of soil displaced by the
concrete foundation can be neglected when evaluating soil bearing
pressures.
ii. Modulus of subgrade reaction. This information is needed in order to
define vertical springs for computer analysis of a mat foundation. It will
be used for long-term gravity load cases.
iii. Vertical soil springs for earthquake loading. In addition to the modulus
of subgrade reaction, request expected, upper-, and lower-bound force-
displacement relationships for short-term dynamic loading for vertical
springs. Request similar relationships for horizontal springs.
iv. Coefficient of friction at the bottom of mat/soil interface, plus associated
safety factor.
v. Allowable passive lateral earth pressure on vertical faces of mat, plus the
associated safety factor. Indicate how passive and sliding resistance can
be combined.
vi. Heave and settlement estimates.
b. Spread/Strip Footings/Grade Beams. Request information similar to that
required for the mat foundation, including an estimate of anticipated long-
term differential settlement between adjacent footings. Request expected,
upper-, and lower-bound force-displacement relationships for short-term
dynamic loading for vertical springs. Request similar relationships for
horizontal springs.
c. Drilled Piers or Piles:
i. Request skin friction and end bearing capacities at allowable levels and
at ultimate levels, suitable for use with code overstrength load
combinations for both tension and compression loading.
ii. Force-deflection plots for axial loading. Request expected, upper-, and
lower-bound force-displacement relationships for short-term dynamic
loading for vertical springs.

iii. Plots of lateral load versus deflection and lateral load versus maximum
moment for both fixed head and pinned head conditions. Request
expected, upper-, and lower-bound force-displacement relationships.
iv. Request information on how group effects may control vertical or lateral
capacity of piles.
v. Request estimates of long-term differential settlement between pile caps
and spread footings when the two systems are mixed.
vi. Request recommendations on minimum depth of embedment.
vii. Request identification of special construction/inspection requirements.
9. Miscellaneous Site Items:
a. Excavations:
i. Maximum slope angles and soil treatment necessary to provide stable
slopes during excavations.
ii. Underpinning and shoring recommendations if required.
iii. Underpinning settlement expectations.
iv. Tie back recommendations.
b. Excavated material/engineered fill. Request information on backfill and
compaction requirements, and whether or not native soils will be acceptable
as fill.
c. Retaining wall recommendations. Request design values for cantilevered
and restrained site retaining walls, including allowable and ultimate bearing
pressures, active and passive pressures, coefficient of friction, seismic and
non-seismic surcharge criteria, appropriate combinations of resisting
elements, and methods of surcharge loading. Request expected, upper-, and
lower-bound force-displacement relationships for short-term dynamic
loading for horizontal springs, if requested.
d. Existing building considerations:
i. Zone of influence of existing building foundations.
ii. Existing footing surcharge loads and other lateral earth pressures.
iii. Deflection requirements of existing foundations, soldier piles, secant
piles, and monitoring recommendations.
e. Recommendations for slabs-on-grade.
f. Assessment of soil corrosivity.

10. Additional SSI Recommendations. In addition to the spring parameters noted
above, request the following:
a. Base slab averaging. Base slab averaging recommendations and limitations
for spectral modifications, if needed.
b. Embedment effects. Recommendations on embedment effects for spectral
modifications, if needed.
c. Damping. Recommendations on soil damping and dashpots if they will be
used in SSI modeling.
6.3.4 Sample Format for Soil Spring Characterization
Soil springs are often not properly, or adequately, implemented in practice. In some
cases, the modulus of subgrade reaction developed for long-term settlement is being
used for dynamic loading situations. In other cases, a single value or single force-
displacement relationship is being used for the soil properties. Figure 6-5 provides a
sample format for presentation of soil spring data.
25
qc(UB) = 22.5 ksf (Short‐term: Upper Bound)
kUB=1920 kcf
qc(UB) = 20 ksf (Short‐term: Expected)
20
k=960 kcf qc(UB) = 18 ksf (Short‐term: Lower Bound)
Bearing Pressure (ksf)
15
kLB=480 kcf
qall = 10 ksf (Short‐term D+L+EQ at ASD)
10
qall = 7.5 ksf (Long‐term D+L at ASD)
qall = 5 ksf (Long‐term D at ASD)
5
kLT= 180 kcf
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Settlement (inches)
Figure 6-5 Sample format for presentation of force-displacement relationships for

soil springs.
The sample format includes both the relationship for long-term settlement, which
needs only a lower-bound, and recommendations for the expected (or target)
properties under dynamic loading, including both an upper-bound and lower-bound.

Per ASCE/SEI 41-06 and other engineering resources, these bounds are typically two
times and one-half times the target, unless narrower bounds are provided by the
geotechnical engineer based on the variability of the site soil conditions. For
simplicity, Figure 6-5 uses an elasto-plastic format. Actual properties would have a
positive post-yield slope and a more rounded transition, which could be
approximated by a tri-linear curve.
6.3.5 Guidance on Modeling Approaches for Typical Foundation

Situations
Guidance on modeling approaches applied to typical foundation design situations,

and recommendations for practice, is provided throughout this report. Examples are
provided in Chapter 7, and recommended procedures are provided in Chapter 8.
6.3.6 Example Applications of Simplified Soil-Structure Interaction
Case studies illustrating the level of effort, relative benefits, and potential drawbacks
associated with simplified SSI modeling approaches are provided in example
applications presented in Chapter 7 for a variety of different building configurations.

Chapter 7
Example Applications
Building seismic response analysis including soil-structure interaction involves

characterization of the soil-foundation interface in the analytical model. Typical
methods for idealizing the soil-foundation interface in current engineering practice
are described in Chapter 6. While some of these models are simple, others require
significant effort to capture linear or nonlinear SSI effects. Example applications in
this chapter are used to demonstrate different foundation modeling techniques and
investigate the relative accuracy of the resulting building response predictions.
Methods for developing soil springs and dashpots described in this report are
implemented on case-study buildings using several models with different
idealizations at the soil-foundation interface. Examples are used to illustrate the
corresponding level of effort for different modeling approaches. Overall results and
selected structural response quantities from the models are compared and contrasted.
Analyses are performed in the context of a substructure approach to modeling SSI
effects.
7.1 Overview of Example Applications
The overall approach for development of example applications involved: (1) the
selection of suitable instrumented buildings that have experienced (and recorded)
earthquake ground motions; (2) development of baseline models for comprehensive
substructure-based analysis of seismic response; (3) calibration of baseline models to
approximately match the recorded response of the buildings through variation of
structural parameters; and (4) systematic variation in the idealization of the soil-
foundation interface to evaluate the impact of different modeling approaches on the
predicted response of the buildings.
Work included a review of the results from similar studies performed by others and
published in the literature. Information from these studies was used to guide the
example applications presented herein, and corroborate the resulting observations.
7.1.1 Summary of Results from Prior Studies
Prior studies reported by Naeim et al. (2008) and Tileylioglu et al. (2010) utilized
typical structural engineering software packages, such as ETABS, Extended Three
Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems (Computers and Structures, Inc.), and
SAP2000, Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design (Computers and
GCR 12-917-21 7: Example Applications 7-1

Structures, Incorporated), to model the soil-foundation interface of two buildings in
Los Angeles, California. One building is a 54-story building, and the second
building is a 6-story building. Both buildings have embedded foundations, and both
experienced earthquakes with recorded ground motions. Only the results of the 54-
story building, however, have been published to date.
Analyses initially employed the full substructure modeling approach, designated the
Baseline Model (or MB) as described in Chapter 6, except that kinematic base
rocking was applied to the base of vertical foundation springs along with depth-
variable ground motions. This results in double-counting of kinematic rotation
effects. Fortunately, these effects were minor for the structures investigated, and
double-counting did not have a significant impact on results.
Springs were elastic, with no compression capacity limit, and zero tension capacity.
Kinematic effects were evaluated in a manner similar to that described in Chapter 3
(except that kinematic base rocking was applied). Significant difficulties were
encountered in implementing multi-support excitation using typical engineering
production software packages. Results were considered reliable for displacement
response, but not reliable for forces. In general, however, good matches between
computed and observed responses were reported using the baseline modeling (MB)
approach.
Selected elements of the full substructure modeling approach were then omitted from
the models to investigate their impact on the computed response. The following
factors did not have a significant impact on the results: (1) consideration of multi-
support excitation along basement walls; and (2) application of a zero-tension
condition in the foundation springs. Consideration of kinematic interaction effects
had a significant impact on the distribution of interstory drifts, particularly below
grade. Consideration of foundation springs had a significant impact on building
vibration periods and distribution of interstory drifts.
Two modeling approaches commonly used in practice were shown to provide poor
results: (1) fixing the structure at the ground surface, truncating the embedded
portions of the structure, and applying the free-field translation as the input motion
(Chapter 6, Model 1); and (2) modeling the embedded base of the structure, using
horizontal and vertical springs with ends fixed against translation, and applying free-
field motions as input at the base slab level (Chapter 6, Model 3).
A fixed-base approach considering embedded portions of the structure (Chapter 6,

Model 2) provided better results, while the “bathtub” approach (Chapter 6, Model 4)
was not considered in this work.
7-2 7: Example Applications GCR 12-917-21

7.1.2 Building Selection
The criteria considered in building selection included: (1) embedded foundations, so

that kinematic effects associated with embedment and depth-variable ground motions
could be considered; (2) recordings of rocking at the foundation level, which requires
two vertical instruments; (3) relatively regular structural configurations, so that the
results obtained are not peculiar to any one building in particular; and (4) structural
configurations and site conditions that would tend to be conducive to significant
inertial SSI effects.
Only buildings with seismic instrumentation and available earthquake recordings in

California were considered, using archives provided by the Center for Engineering
Strong Motion Data (CESMD). The CESMD provides strong-motion data for
earthquake engineering applications. It was established by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS) to integrate
and disseminate earthquake strong-motion data from the CGS California Strong
Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), the USGS National Strong Motion
Project, and the Advanced National Seismic System (CESMD, 2011).
Two case-study buildings were selected from CSMIP, consisting of: (1) a 13-story,
reinforced concrete moment frame structure (designed in 1964; retrofitted in 1994),
with two basement levels, located in Sherman Oaks, California; and (2) a 10-story,
reinforced concrete shear wall core and perimeter moment frame structure (designed
in 1970), without any basement levels, located in Walnut Creek, California. The
exterior elevations of the buildings are shown in Figure 7-1.
(a) (b)
Figure 7-1 Exterior elevations of two case-study buildings: (a) 13-story Sherman
Oaks building; and (b) 10-story Walnut Creek building (CESMD,
2011, with permission).

The Sherman Oaks building foundation consists of grade beams and friction pile
foundations on alluvial sediments. The building was shaken strongly by the 1994
Northridge earthquake and less-strongly by other, more distant events. The Walnut
Creek building foundation consists of a shallow concrete mat foundation below the
shear wall core, and a combination of spread footings and belled caissons with
shallow embedment, resting on weathered shale bedrock, below the perimeter
moment frames. The Walnut Creek building was shaken by the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake and other smaller events.
No single building was found to meet all of the selection criteria. The Sherman Oaks
building satisfied criteria (1) and (3) above, while the Walnut Creek building satisfied
criteria (2), (3), and (4) above.
7.1.3 Modeling Approaches
Modeling approaches considered in the example applications are shown in Figure

7-2. They are based on the approaches implemented in typical engineering practice,
as described in Chapter 6. They include the Baseline Model (designated MB), and
various simplified idealizations of the soil-foundation interface, designated Model 1,
Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4.
Figure 7-2 Modeling approaches considered in example applications.
 Baseline Model (MB). A baseline model (designated MB) is a three-

dimensional model of the building, foundation, and soil-foundation interface.
Baseline models are not intended to be the most accurate models that could be
developed (a direct SSI analysis in a finite element platform could provide

improved results). Instead, they are intended to represent a comprehensive
modeling approach that includes soil springs to consider translational and
rotational degrees of freedom, dashpots to address soil damping effects, and
multi-support excitation to capture variable input motions over the depth of
embedment. Baseline models incorporate vertical translation, horizontal
translation, and rocking degrees of freedom. A series of springs and dashpots are
developed based on site-specific soil properties. Seismic input includes base
translation, as well as kinematic loading of basement walls (simulated by
displacement histories applied to the ends of horizontal springs attached to
basement walls). Baseline models are calibrated to match building response
quantities interpreted from available recorded data.
Once baseline models have been successfully calibrated to match recorded data, the
soil-foundation interface is idealized using one of the following simplified modeling
approaches from Chapter 6:
 Model 1. In Model 1, only the above-ground portion of the structure is modeled,
the base is fixed at the ground surface, and the free-field ground motion, ug, is
applied at the base of the model.
 Model 2. In Model 2, the above-ground and subterranean portions of the
structure are modeled, the based is fixed at the bottom of the embedded portion
of the structure, the soil surrounding the embedded portion is ignored (i.e., no
horizontal foundation springs are used), and the free-field ground motion, ug, is
applied at the base of the model.
structure are modeled, horizontal and vertical soil springs are included, the far
end of each spring is fixed against translation, and the free-field ground motion,
ug, is applied at the base slab while horizontal springs at other levels remain
fixed. In the example applications, Model 3 is investigated using response
history analysis, although in practice, it is typically used in nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis applications.
structure are modeled, horizontal and vertical soil springs are included, the far
end of each spring is fixed against a rigid “bathtub” element, and the horizontal
foundation input motion, uFIM, or free-field motion, ug, is applied to the rigid
element. The key difference between Model 4 and Model MB is the manner in
which the seismic demand is applied. In Model 4, the effect of kinematic loading
on basement walls associated with depth-variable displacement histories is
neglected. Further, the use of free-field motions in lieu of foundation input
motions neglects kinematic interaction altogether by replacing the recorded

motions at the base of the building with equivalent free-field motions applied
uniformly at the ends of all horizontal foundation springs.
Table 7-1 summarizes the properties of the modeling approaches considered in the
example applications. Variations in Model MB (denoted MB.1 and MB.2) are
considered as follows:
 In Model MB.1, the embedded portion of the building is assumed to be rigid.
The specification of seismic demand is not modified. The objective of this model
is to investigate the effects of flexibility in the subterranean structural elements.
 In Model MB.2, there is a change in the way that soil flexibility is modeled. In
this model, springs are not allowed to develop tension to investigate the effects of
nonlinearities in the foundation springs.
Table 7-1 Summary of Modeling Approaches Considered in Example Applications
Model Variations
Parameters No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 MB MB.1 MB.2
Structural Foundation
N/A Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Rigid Flexible
Elements
4a: uFIM
Input Motion ug ug ug uFIM uFIM uFIM
4b: ug
Depth-variable Ground
No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Motion
Not
Spring Tension n/a n/a Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Permitted
All modeling schemes, except Model MB.2, permit tension to develop in the soil
springs. The rationale for this approach is that, prior to an earthquake, actual
basement wall-to-soil contact pressures range between ‘at rest’ and ‘active’ earth
pressures. Springs have an initial condition of zero force. Since earthquake shaking
will impose alternating cycles of increased and decreased pressures relative to the
initial state, wall-to-soil contact can be represented by a spring that develops tension,
provided that the level of deformation does not lead to gap formation. Given the
modest levels of demand imposed on the Sherman Oaks and Walnut Creek buildings,
this was expected to be a reasonable assumption, and this assumption was tested
using Model MB.2 on the Sherman Oaks building.
7.2 Sherman Oaks Building
The Sherman Oaks building is a 13-story structure above grade with two basement
levels below grade. The seismic force-resisting system consists of reinforced
concrete moment-resisting frames that extend from the roof to the foundation,
supplemented by perimeter concrete shear walls in the subterranean levels. The
gravity system consists of cast-in-place concrete slabs supported on concrete beams

and columns. The building was originally designed in 1964, and later seismically
upgraded with friction dampers following the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Construction drawings of the Sherman Oaks building were made available for
inspection through the auspices of the California Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program. The building measures 50 m (164 ft) tall from the ground surface to the
roof. The plan dimensions of the superstructure are 21.9 m (72 ft) wide by 57.6 m
(189 ft) long, although it widens at the first floor to match the foundation dimensions.
The height of the first story is 7.0 m (23 ft), and other above-grade stories are 3.6 m
(11.75 ft). The basement levels are embedded approximately 6.2 m (20.5 ft) below
the ground surface. The height of the first basement level is 3.5 m (11.5 ft), and the
height of the second basement level is 2.7 m (9 ft). The characteristics of the
foundation are described in Section 7.2.3 below.
7.2.1 Site Characterization
A plan view of the Sherman Oaks site is shown in Figure 7-3. The ground surface
elevation is approximately 216 m (709 ft) above mean sea level. Boring information
and geophysical logs were obtained from geotechnical investigations conducted in
the vicinity of the site (LeRoy, Crandall and Associates, 1978 and 1982).
Figure 7-3 Plan view of the Sherman Oaks site showing locations of borehole
and geophysical logs used for site characterization (adapted from
LeRoy, Crandall and Associates, 1978 and 1982).
Information from a total of 47 borings ranging in depth from 15 m (50 ft) to 38 m

(125 ft) was obtained. Borings indicated relatively consistent soil conditions,
consisting of alluvial deposits composed of silt, with sand and clay overlying shale

bedrock at depths ranging from 21 m (70 ft) to 27 m (90 ft). The water table was
measured at an approximate depth of 12 m (40 ft) below the ground surface.
Geophysical data was developed from downhole seismic surveys. Based on available
geotechnical information, an interpretation of the soil layering at the site, in terms of
shear wave velocity profile and material profile, is shown in Figure 7-4.
Figure 7-4 Subsurface characteristics of the Sherman Oaks site: (a) shear wave velocity
profile; and (b) material profile (adapted from LeRoy, Crandall and Associates,
1978 and 1982).
The average moist unit weight was taken to be 20 kN/m3 (124 lb/ft3). To estimate
strength properties of the foundation soils, direct shear test results from samples were
utilized. In the shallow soils, where most of the soil-foundation load transfer will
occur, the soil is unsaturated, so drained shear strengths were used. For the range of
surcharge pressures over the soil profile extending to the bottom of piles at a depth of
approximately 16.2 m (53 ft) below grade, the soil Mohr Coulomb strength
parameters inferred from available data are: (1) c′ = 20.1 kN/m2, and ′ 30°, from
0.0 m to 6.1 m; and (2) c′ = 12.9 kN/m2, and ′ = 38°, from 6.1 m to 16.2 m.
7.2.2 Ground Motion Recordings
The Sherman Oaks building was instrumented in 1977 by the California Strong
Motion Instrumentation Program and designated CSMIP Station No. 24322.

Instrumentation includes 15 accelerometers at the locations shown in Figure 7-5,
including the second basement (foundation level), ground floor, second floor, eighth
floor, and roof levels. There is only one vertical sensor located at the foundation
level, so base rocking effects cannot be measured, and there are no free-field
instruments in the vicinity of the site.
Figure 7-5 Sherman Oaks building (CSMIP Station No. 24322) instrument
locations (CESMD, 2011, with permission).
Since 1977, six earthquake events have been recorded and processed by CSMIP at
this station. The events, along with peak accelerations for the second basement level,
ground floor, and roof are presented in Table 7-2. Note that in the 1987 Whittier and
1994 Northridge events, the peak accelerations followed an unusual pattern in which
the largest recorded motions occurred at the ground floor (i.e., the recorded motions
at the foundation and roof levels were smaller). As a result, subsequent calculations
are based on peak accelerations measured at the foundation level.
Horizontal translations recorded at the second basement (foundation) level were used
as foundation input motions, uFIM. The foundation input motion, uFIM, is the modified
free-field, ug, response due to base-slab averaging and embedment effects. Typically,
ug is known, and uFIM must be calculated based on transfer functions. In this case,
uFIM was measured and ug was inferred using transfer functions to remove the base-

slab averaging and embedment effects. The recorded uFIM and inferred ug response
spectra for the 1994 Northridge earthquake are shown in Figure 7-6.
Table 7-2 Summary of Earthquake Events Recorded at the Sherman Oaks Building
Second Basement Ground Floor Roof
Earthquake (Foundation), (g) (g) (g)
N-S E-W V N-S E-W V N-S E-W V
1987 Whittier 0.100 0.148 0.038 0.250 0.169 ---- 0.140 0.140 ----
1992 Landers 0.039 0.031 0.012 0.045 0.035 ---- 0.085 0.095 ----
1994 Northridge 0.453 0.227 0.181 0.886 0.392 ---- 0.467 0.257 ----
2007 Chatsworth 0.015 0.022 NR 0.045 0.058 ---- 0.025 0.036 ----
2008 Chino Hills 0.049 0.037 0.010 0.073 0.045 ---- 0.082 0.067 ----
2010 Calexico 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.005 ---- 0.049 0.022 ----
Symbols: N-S=north-south; E-W=east-west; V=vertical; NR=no record available.
Figure 7-6 Response spectra for recorded foundation input motion, uFIM, and inferred free-
field motion, ug, at the Sherman Oaks building, 1994 Northridge earthquake.
An equivalent linear ground response analysis was performed using DEEPSOIL v4.0
(University of Illinois, 2011) to estimate the depth-variable ground response adjacent
to the embedded portion of the structure, taking the recording of uFIM as input at
6.7 m with an elastic half-space. Input motions in ground response analyses can be
specified as “outcropping” or “within,” the former requiring an elastic half-space, and
the latter requiring a rigid base (Kwok et al., 2007). For the Sherman Oaks building,
the motion was recorded “within” the profile, but on a large foundation slab that
could be interpreted as representing an outcropping condition. Analyses were
performed for both conditions, with “outcropping” results appearing to be more
realistic.

Dynamic soil properties consisted of the Vs profile shown in Figure 7-4 and modulus
reduction and damping curves appropriate for the overburden pressures and soil types
present at the site, as given by Darendeli (2001). DEEPSOIL does not update the
shear modulus reduction of the elastic half-space during the analysis. Therefore, the
elastic half-space parameter was updated through iterative runs until convergence
was reached with the Vs of the deepest layer in the soil column. The computed
variation of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) with
depth is shown in Figure 7-7. Note that PGA changes significantly with depth
(approximately 50%) whereas the change in PGV is comparatively minor.
Figure 7-7 Computed variation of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak
ground velocity (PGV) with depth at the Sherman Oaks site, 1994
Northridge earthquake.
7.2.3 Foundation Conditions
The foundation is rectangular in plan, measuring 36.3 m (119 ft) wide by 57.6 m
(189 ft) long. The foundation consists of bored pile groups of varying configurations,
interconnected by pile caps and grade beams. The cast-in-place (bored) concrete
piles measure 51 cm (20 in) in diameter, and extend to a depth of approximately
9.9 m (32.5 ft) below the lowest basement level (i.e., approximately 16.2 m below
grade). Typical pile spacing varies between 0.9 m (3 ft) to 1.2 m (4 ft), center to
center. Concrete basement walls surround all embedded levels below grade. A
foundation plan developed based on information contained in construction drawings
provided by CSMIP is shown in Figure 7-8.

Figure 7-8 Sherman Oaks building foundation plan, based on construction drawings
provided by CSMIP.
7.2.4 Development of Foundation Springs and Dashpots
For the Sherman Oaks building, resistance is provided by both shallow and deep
foundation elements. It is assumed that the shallow foundation elements (principally
grade beams) remain in contact with the soil, which is justified by the sandy nature of
the soils at the site and the presence of friction piles rather than end-bearing piles.
The methodologies described in Chapter 2 were applied to the development of

foundation springs and dashpots for the Sherman Oaks building. Critical input
parameters included the foundation dimensions, fundamental vibration periods of the
structure, soil properties, and the amplitude of the input motion. Modeling of the
Sherman Oaks foundation and site conditions included the following:
 Determination of average effective profile velocity for shallow foundation
elements, considering foundation dimensions, overburden pressures from the
structure, and nonlinear effects.
 Determination of the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio for estimating the
significance of soil-structure interaction effects.
 Calculation of shallow foundation horizontal stiffness and damping coefficients,
and their separate contributions arising from base slab friction and passive
pressure resistance against the basement walls.

 Calculation of vertical stiffness and damping coefficients for springs under the
base slab, emphasizing the adjustment for rotational impedance for shallow
foundation elements.
 Contribution of pile groups to the vertical and lateral stiffness of the foundation
system.
 Distribution of shallow foundation springs and dashpots to the nodes in the
analytical model.
 Calculation of limiting spring forces (i.e., capacities).
Static stiffnesses, dynamic stiffness modifiers, and embedment correction factors,
were calculated for the Sherman Oaks building based on gross foundation dimensions
(21.9 m by 57.6 m). The use of gross foundation dimensions assumes that stress
bulbs below the pile caps and grade beams overlap at modest depth, so that the
shallow foundation components effectively perform as a unified foundation system.
This assumption does not require the relatively thin foundation slab between pile
caps and grade beams to resist bearing pressures.
Average Effective Profile Velocity. For soil profiles that vary with depth,
foundation stiffness and damping coefficients are based on an average effective
profile velocity calculated over an effective profile depth, zp. Table 7-3 summarizes
the effective profile depth, zp, the depth range, and the average effective profile
velocity calculated using Equation 2-18 for each foundation vibration mode over the
depth range considered.
Table 7-3 Summary of Effective Profile Depths and Average Effective Profile Velocities
for the Sherman Oaks Building
zp Depth Range Vs,avg
Vibration Mode Basis (1) (m) (m) (m/s)
Horizontal translation (x and y), overall BL 17.8 0 to 24.0 254.2
Horizontal translation (x and y), base spring BL 17.8 6.2 to 24.0 296.2
Vertical translation (z) BL 17.8 0 to 24.0 254.2
Rocking along x-axis (xx) 4

B3 L 14.0 0 to 20.2 243.0
Rocking along y-axis (yy) 4

BL3 22.6 0 to 28.8 277.7
Notes: (1) Calculated using overall foundation half-width, B=11 m; half-length, L=28.8 m.
In Table 7-3, the maximum depth considered is greater than zp by the amount of the
foundation embedment, D (i.e., the depth range extends to D + zp). For the specific
case of the horizontal base spring, the depth interval begins at the base of the
foundation.

Before averaging, measured free-field velocities, Vs, should be increased to account
for the presence of overburden pressures caused by the added weight of the structure.
For the Sherman Oaks building, the weight of the soil that was excavated for the
basement levels was slightly greater than the estimated weight of the structure, so no
net overburden pressure exists below the foundation, and no correction was applied.
Structure-to-Soil Stiffness Ratio. Taking the transverse (N-S) direction as critical,

the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, h/(VsT), for the Sherman Oaks building is
approximately 0.06, calculated using two-thirds of the modeled building height from
foundation to roof, h = 2/3(56.2 m) = 37.5 m, the fundamental period for the fixed
base condition in the transverse direction, T = 2.71 sec, and the average effective
profile velocity for rocking about the xx-axis, Vs, avg = 243.0 m/s. Because this ratio is
less than 0.1, strong inertial SSI effects would not be expected to occur (i.e., period
lengthening near unity, foundation damping near zero). The building was further
analyzed, however, to study potential kinematic interaction effects on higher mode
responses. This study was used to determine if a building for which traditional first-
mode SSI metrics indicated no significant effect, could, in fact, exhibit potentially
significant impacts on the vertical distribution of structural response quantities used
in design (e.g., drift ratios and story shears).
Horizontal Stiffness and Damping. Calculations for horizontal stiffness and

damping ratios are shown in Table 7-4. For horizontal stiffness, contributions from
both base friction and passive pressure resistance were considered. Because base
friction mobilizes the soil below the embedment depth, D, the average effective
profile velocity for the base spring is taken between depths D and D+zp. The base
spring stiffness was subtracted from the overall horizontal stiffness to determine the
portion of horizontal stiffness attributed to passive pressure resistance against the
basement walls.
In Table 7-4, shear modulus, G, was evaluated from Equation 2-9, using a soil mass
density, s, of 20 kN/m3/g, and values of average effective profile velocity, Vs, avg,
determined using overburden-corrected shear wave velocities below the foundation,
shown in Table 7-3. Values of shear modulus should be reduced to account for large
strain effects associated with nonlinear behavior. Using Table 2-1, assuming Site
Class D, and peak acceleration (at the foundation level) of about 0.45 g from the
1994 Northridge earthquake, the shear modulus reduction factor, G/G0 = 0.5. A
modulus reduction factor of 1.0 was used for the other smaller events. Other
parameters were determined using the equations referenced in the table.

Table 7-4 Calculation of Shallow Foundation Stiffness and Damping Parameters for the Sherman Oaks Building
G(1) Ksur (2)  a0(3)  sur emb
Eq. 2-9 Table 2-2a Table Eq. Table Table Table Dynamic Stiffness Dashpot Coefficient
Spring/Dashpot (MPa) (kN/m; kN-m/rad) 2-2b 2-15 2-3a 2-3a 2-3b Eq. 2-14a Eq. 2-13a
Horizontal, overall
x-direction    s 
65.2 6.48e6 1.45 0.13 1 0.076 0.114 k x ,total   x K x , sur x cx,total  2k x ,total  emb 
  
k x ,total , cx ,total 
Horizontal, overall
y-direction    s 
65.2 7.04e6 1.45 0.13 1 0.070 0.106 k y ,total   y K y , sur y cy ,total  2k y ,total  emb 
  
k y ,total , c y ,total 
Horizontal, base spring

88.6 8.81e6 --- 0.11 1 0.065 --- k x ,base   x K x , sur cx,base  2k x ,base  sur 
  
k x ,base , cx ,base 

88.6 9.56e6 --- 0.11 1 0.060 --- k y ,base   y K y , sur cy ,base  2k y ,base  sur 
  
k y ,base , c y ,base 
Vertical, z    s 
65.2 8.55e6 1.22 0.13 1 --- 0.132 k z   z K z , sur z cz  2kz  emb 
 kz , cz    
Rocking about x-axis    s 
58.0 1.05e9 1.74 0.14 1 --- 0.010 k xx   xx K xx , sur xx cxx  2kxx  emb 
 kxx , cxx    
Rocking about y-axis    s 
73.9 5.55e9 1.58 0.12 0.99 --- 0.003 k yy   yy K yy , sur yy cyy  2k yy  emb 
k yy , c yy    
Notes: (1) Calculated using a shear modulus reduction factor, G/G0=0.5 for the Northridge earthquake; for other events G/G0=1.0, and values would be doubled.
(2) Calculated using overall foundation half-width, B=11 m; half-length, L=28.8 m; and =0.33.
(3) Calculated at a frequency corresponding to the first-mode period of the flexible-base structure.

Dashpot coefficients were determined using Equation 2-13a and the total foundation
damping ratio. The total foundation damping ratio is equal to the sum of the
radiation damping ratio (determined using equations in Chapter 2) and the soil
hysteretic damping ratio, s. For the Sherman Oaks site, the soil hysteretic damping
ratio was evaluated using Darendeli (2001), and determined to be 0.088 for the
Northridge earthquake, and 0.009 for the other events.
Vertical Stiffness and Damping. Calculations for overall vertical and rotational
stiffness and damping ratios are shown in Table 7-4, using values of average
effective profile velocity from Table 7-3. Vertical springs were distributed over the
footprint of the foundation, as shown in Figure 7-9, using a vertical stiffness intensity
that is normalized by area (Equation 2-20). Stiffness intensities were adjusted near
the edges of the foundation to match the overall rocking stiffness values given in
Table 7-4 (using Equation 2-21 and an end length ratio of Re = 0.4). The stiffness of
any individual spring in the model was then computed as the product of stiffness
intensity and the tributary area for the spring.
k zi  kN/m3  czi  kN-sec/m3 

8,202 715
29,361 2,454
36,524 3,209
43,687 3,964
Figure 7-9 Vertical spring and dashpot intensities distributed over the footprint
of the Sherman Oaks building. Solid lines represent tributary area
boundaries and solid circles represent column nodes.
Vertical stiffness intensities in the central zone of the foundation were computed
using Equation 2-20a. Edge intensities were increased by factors of Rk = 5.33 for the
xx-direction and Rk = 3.58 for the yy-direction to correct for underestimation of
rotational stiffness (Equations 2-21a, 2-21b). Corner intensities were evaluated as the
average of the intensities in the xx- and yy-directions. Dashpot intensities were
calculated based on stiffness intensities using Equation 2-20b, and reduced by Rc
(Equations 2-21c, 2-21d), to correct for overestimation of rotational damping.

Contribution of Pile Groups. Pile group horizontal and vertical stiffness and
damping ratios were evaluated in accordance with Section 2.3. Active pile length, La,
was evaluated separately for the two vibration modes. It is approximately equal to
the pile length, Lp, for vertical modes, and is less than Lp for horizontal modes. For
the Sherman Oaks building, the active pile length for horizontal loading was
evaluated using the results from Syngros (2004). Static pile stiffnesses, K jp , were
calculated using the equations in Table 2-4a, modified for dynamic effects to
calculate the single pile stiffness, k jp , and then modified for group effects.
Calculations were based on average effective shear wave velocity calculated over an
effective profile depth from D to D+La, and shear modulus reduced for large strain
effects (G/G0=0.5 for the Northridge earthquake; 1.0 for other events). Approximate
dynamic pile group efficiency factors for the Sherman Oaks building were evaluated
using Figure 2-11.
Results are shown in Table 7-5. Results are provided for 3x3 and 4x4 pile group
configurations and applied to individual pile groups shown in Figure 7-8. Results for
3x3 pile groups were applied to groups with 12 piles, and results for 4x4 pile groups
were applied to groups with more than 13 piles. The modeled stiffness for each pile
group is the product of the individual pile stiffness, k jp , the pile group efficiency
factor, k Gj , and the number of piles, Npile, in each group.
Table 7-5 Calculation of Pile Stiffness and Damping Parameters for the Sherman Oaks
Building
Static Pile Pile Group
Active Pile Stiffness, Efficiency
Pile Group
Length, La Vs,avg G(1) K jp (2) Factor,
Spring/ Damping Ratio,
Dashpot (m) (m/s) (MPa) (MN/m) k Gj (3) j (3)
Horizontal, x, y
4.1 180.1 63.4 237.3 0.47 0.2
(3x3 group)
Vertical, z
9.9 183.7 67.6 859.3 0.43 0.25
(3x3 group)
Horizontal, x, y
4.1 180.1 63.4 237.3 0.36 0.05
(4x4 group)
Vertical, z
9.9 183.7 67.6 859.3 0.30 0.29
(4x4 group)
Notes: (1) Calculatedusing a shear modulus reduction factor, G/G0=0.5 for the Northridge earthquake.
(2) Calculatedfor Ep=474.8 MPa, and d=0.6 m.
(3) Approximated using Figure 2-11.
Distribution of Springs to Foundation Nodes. A total of 68 nodes were included in

the Sherman Oaks foundation model. Horizontal springs and dashpots were
distributed across nodes on the basement walls (representing passive pressures) and
base slab (representing base shear). Vertical springs and dashpots were distributed

across nodes on the base slab. A plan view, transverse section, and longitudinal
section of foundation nodes are shown in Figure 7-10.
Pile Group Contribution k y , piles  k yG k x , piles  k xG
Translation in the k y ,total  k y ,base k y ,base k y , piles

k1  k2  k1  
y-direction 48 16 16
Translation in the k x ,total  k x ,base k x ,base k x , piles

k4  k5  k 4  
x-direction 27 6 6
k3  k zG  k z
Translation in the
z-direction Note: k3 is not a constant value; is a function of Npiles, and kz is a function
of spring intensities shown in Figure 7-9.
Figure 7-10 Plan view, transverse section, and longitudinal section of foundation nodes
for the Sherman Oaks building, and calculation of associated spring
stiffnesses.
The overall horizontal stiffness, including contributions from base shear, passive
pressure resistance against the basement walls, and pile groups, was distributed
around the foundation perimeter (i.e., interior nodes have no horizontal springs).

Half of the horizontal stiffness was distributed to each edge of the foundation in each
direction. Horizontal stiffness was partitioned between a base stiffness and a wall
stiffness in each direction. Wall stiffnesses were distributed equally to each
basement wall node, and base stiffnesses were distributed equally along each side of
the foundation.
Vertical stiffness, including contributions from shallow foundation elements and

piles, was modeled at all 24 foundation nodes. Shallow foundation stiffness
contributions were based on stiffness intensity, and pile stiffness contributions were
based on the vertical pile group stiffness calculations. Dashpots were distributed to
the foundation nodes in an identical manner.
Limiting Spring Capacities. Capacities of individual springs were evaluated using

conventional vertical and lateral pile group capacity analysis (e.g., Salgado, 2008).
Pile group capacities were assigned to foundation nodes as described above for
spring stiffness. Capacities are compared to spring force demands in the following
section.
7.2.5 Analysis Results
The Sherman Oaks building was analyzed in OpenSees (McKenna, 1997),

incorporating foundation springs and dashpots described above. Details for the
development and calibration of the Baseline Model (MB) are described in
Appendix A. Adjustments to the shear modulus for cracked concrete, Rayleigh
damping, and structural mass and stiffness were used to produce a reasonably close
match to recordings from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Based on calibration
studies, Model MB was considered a reasonable engineering approximation for the
Sherman Oaks building. Using this model as a basis, alternative modeling
configurations for the Sherman Oaks building were developed and studied, and the
resulting response quantities were compared for the following variants:
 Model MB.1, which examined the importance of flexibility in subterranean
structural elements (walls and slabs);
 Model MB.2, which examined the importance of nonlinearity in foundation
springs by not allowing tension (allowing gap formation);
 Model 4, which removed the effects of depth-variable ground motions and
considered the use of free-field motions (versus foundation input motions);
 Model 3, which fixed the far ends of foundation springs against displacement and
applied input motions at the base slab level;
 Model 2, which ignored the effects of embedment by omitting the surrounding
soil and assumed a fixed base at the foundation level; and

 Model 1, which ignored the response of the subterranean levels by assuming a
rigid base at the ground level.
Fundamental periods of vibration for each of the model variants are shown in Table
7-6. The resulting modeled periods were only modestly affected by different
idealizations of the soil-foundation interface.
Modeling Configurations for the Sherman Oaks Building
Fundamental Period
(sec)
Model Longitudinal Transverse
MB (Baseline Model) 2.67 2.72
MB.1 (rigid subterranean structure) 2.35 2.68
MB.2 (no tension in foundation springs) 2.65 2.73
Model 4 (bathtub) 2.67 2.72
Model 3 (fixed horizontal springs) 2.34 2.65
Model 2 (fixed at foundation) 2.67 2.71
Model 1 (fixed at grade) 2.34 2.67
Comparisons of computed displacement histories, maximum displacement, drift

ratios, story shear coefficients, and peak floor accelerations between Model MB and
the other models are shown in Figures 7-11 through 7-15. A summary of peak
response quantities from all foundation modeling configurations is shown in Figure
7-16.
Model MB.1 and Model MB.2. Results for Model MB.1 in Figure 7-11 showed that
rigid subterranean structural elements caused an increase structural response,
particularly in the NS direction, likely due to the change in period. In the case of
Model MB.2, results in Figure 7-11 showed that allowing geometric nonlinearities
(i.e., gap formation) had no discernible impact on response. This suggests that gaps
would not be expected to form in the foundation springs between the soil and the
basement walls, and supports the equivalent-linear soil-foundation modeling
assumptions suggested in Section 7.1.3.
Model 4. Results for Model 4 in Figure 7-12 showed that the bathtub model
introduces negligible changes in displacement response over the height of the
structure (i.e., less than 3.6% different at the roof level). Changes in story drift and
story shear force profiles were also negligible. Peak floor accelerations were most
sensitive to the change in modeling configuration. Values above the ground level
were relatively unaffected, but values in the subterranean levels were sensitive to the

use of free field motions (results marked ‘4b’) versus foundation input motions
(results marked ‘4a’).
Model 3. Results for Model 3 in Figure 7-13 showed the least agreement with Model
MB. Fixing the upper-level foundation springs against displacement, and applying
input motions to the base slab, caused large differences in all response quantities
including building vibration periods, displacement histories, drift ratios, and story
shears. Given the significant discrepancies observed, use of this modeling
configuration is not recommended.
Model 2. Results for Model 2 in Figure 7-14 showed that modeling the subterranean
levels, even while ignoring the effects of the surrounding soil, can provide good
results for some response quantities. Model 2 exhibited good agreement for building
vibration periods and displacement histories. Reasonable agreement was observed
for maximum displacement and drift ratios, but story shears and peak floor
accelerations differed more significantly, particularly in the subterranean levels.
Model 1. Results for Model 1 indicated that ignoring the subterranean levels
significantly alters the period of vibration. As a result, displacement histories were
more out-of-phase than most other modeling configurations, as shown in Figure 7-15.
Differences in story drifts, story shears, and peak floor accelerations were relatively
large (up to 50% different) in some cases.
In Figure 7-16, peak displacement, drift, and story shear response quantities from all
modeling configurations were synthesized and plotted in a single figure. Results for
Model 3 are clear outliers for each of the parameters considered. Results for Model 4
are closest to Model MB, followed by Model 2, and then Model 1. Differences in
response quantities, when they occurred, were generally greater in the subterranean
levels than in the levels above grade.

between Model MB, MB.1 and MB.2 for the Sherman Oaks building.

between Model MB and Model 4 for the Sherman Oaks building.




Figure 7-16 Comparison of peak displacements, drift ratios, and story shears
from all model configurations, in the transverse direction.
7.3 Sherman Oaks Building Parametric Studies
Analysis of the Sherman Oaks building showed that key building response quantities
can be affected by the foundation modeling assumptions, even when the structure-to-
soil stiffness ratio, h/(VsT), does not indicate a strong dependence on SSI effects.
Additional parametric studies were performed to investigate how different structural
system characteristics might influence the magnitude of SSI effects on modeled
response. A series of simplified stick models of the Sherman Oaks building were
developed, and the resulting response quantities for each model were compared.

The key parameter varied between the models was structural stiffness. The moment
frame system of the Sherman Oaks building was idealized as a stick model, and the
stiffness scaled to different factors representing the stiffness of a series of core shear
wall and perimeter shear wall variations in the structural system. The parametric
stick models of the Sherman Oaks building are summarized in Table 7-7.
Table 7-7 Summary of Sherman Oaks Building Parametric Stick Models
Y-Direction X-Direction
(N-S) (2) (E-W) (3)
Stiffness Modeled
Scale Fdn. Model Height Ty Tx
System Factor Model ID (m) (1) (sec) h/(VsT) (sec) h/(VsT)
Moment
1 1 1-MF 50 2.83 0.05 2.61 0.05
Frame
2 2-MF 56.25 2.86 0.05 2.62 0.05
4a 4a-MF 56.25 2.87 0.05 2.63 0.05
MB MB-MF 56.25 2.87 0.05 2.62 0.05
Shear Wall
5 1 1-SW 50 1.32 0.10 1.17 0.10
Core
2 2-SW 56.25 1.39 0.11 1.20 0.11
4a 4a-SW 56.25 1.40 0.11 1.20 0.11
MB MB-SW 56.25 1.40 0.11 1.20 0.11
Perimeter
25 1 1-SW1 50 0.73 0.19 0.56 0.21
Shear Wall
2 2-SW1 56.25 0.84 0.18 0.63 0.21
4a 4a-SW1 56.25 0.88 0.18 0.62 0.22
MB MB-SW1 56.25 0.87 0.18 0.62 0.22
Perimeter
50 1 1-SW2 50 0.63 0.22 0.42 0.29
Shear Wall
2 2-SW2 56.25 0.75 0.21 0.52 0.26
4a 4a-SW2 56.25 0.79 0.20 0.51 0.26
MB MB-SW2 56.25 0.78 0.20 0.51 0.26
Perimeter
125 1 1-SW3 50 0.55 0.25 0.32 0.38
Shear Wall
2 2-SW3 56.25 0.69 0.22 0.44 0.31
4a 4a-SW3 56.25 0.73 0.21 0.43 0.31
MB MB-SW3 56.25 0.72 0.21 0.43 0.31
Notes: (1) h= 2/3 x Modeled Height
(2) Vs =243.0 m/s in the N-S direction (average effective profile velocity for xx-rotation)
(3) Vs =277.7 m/s in the E-W direction (average effective profile velocity for yy-rotation)

Each system was investigated considering the foundation modeling configurations
associated with Model 1, Model 2, Model 4, and Model MB. Based on results from
the Sherman Oaks building analyses, Model 3 was not considered further. As shown
in Table 7-7, the change in structural stiffness affects the modeled period in each
direction, and correspondingly changes the resulting structure-to-soil stiffness ratio,
h/(VsT). As the stiffness increases, the ratio eventually exceeds 0.1, and the expected
impact of SSI effects becomes more significant.
An idealized stick model for the Sherman Oaks building is shown in Figure 7-17.
Although the superstructure has been simplified into a single equivalent stick, each
model includes detailed modeling at the foundation level, essentially maintaining
foundation geometry, and spring and dashpot configurations. Details on stick model
development and calibration with the full-building model are provided in
Appendix B.
Figure 7-17 Elevation an idealized stick model of the Sherman Oaks building.
7.3.1 Parametric Study Results
Detailed analytical results for all parametric stick models are provided in
Appendix B. Results are compared between the moment frame stick model and the

full-building model to demonstrate the level of consistency in model predictions
using the idealized stick configuration. Results for key response quantities including
maximum displacement, story drift, story shear, and peak floor acceleration are
compared for each structural system variant across building all foundation modeling
configurations to document the change in relative SSI effects observed as the
structural system parameters were changed.
Table 7-8 summarizes relative comparisons between the results for each response
quantity for the moment frame (MF), core shear wall (SW), and perimeter shear wall
(SW3) models. Information is based on plots provided in Appendix B. An
explanation for the nomenclature used in the table is provided in the footnotes.
Table 7-8 Comparison of Results for Moment Frame, Core Shear Wall, and Perimeter Shear Wall
Stick Models and Alternative Foundation Modeling Configurations
Moment Core Shear Perimeter Shear Wall
Frame (MF) Wall (SW) (SW3)
Response X-Direct. Y-Direct. X-Direct. Y-Direct. X-Direct. Y-Direct.
Quantity Location (E-W) (N-S) (E-W) (N-S) (E-W) (N-S)
Period --- 1 < 2, 4a, MB Similar 1 < 2, 4a, MB 1 < 2, 4a, MB 1 < 2 < 4a, MB 1 < 2, 4a, MB
Displacement Superstructure 4a, MB <1, 2 4a, MB <2<1 1<< 4a, MB <2 1<<2<4a, MB 1< 4a, MB <2 1<<2, 4a < MB
Basement 4a, MB <1, 2 Similar 4a,MB < 2 4a,MB < 2 4a,MB < 2 4a,MB < 2
Story Drift Superstructure 2, 4a, MB <1 4a<MB <2<1 Varies 1 < 2, 4a, MB Similar 1, 2< 4a < MB
Basement 2,4a < MB 4a<2<< MB 4a<2< MB 4a<2<< MB 4a<2, MB 4a<2<< MB
Story Shear Superstructure 2, 4a, MB <1 2, 4a, MB <1 4a,MB <2<1 1< 4a, MB <2 4a< MB< 2<<1 2< 4a< MB<<1
Basement 4a<<2 < MB 4a<<2 < MB 4a<<2<< MB 4a<<2<< MB 4a<2<< MB 4a<<2<< MB
Peak Floor
Superstructure Similar 4a< 1< MB< 2 4a < MB <1, 2 4a < MB <1, 2 4a < MB <1< 2 2, 4a, MB <<1
Acceleration
Basement 4a, MB<<2 4a, MB<<2 4a, MB < 2 4a, MB < 2 4a, MB<<2 4a, MB<<2
Notes: (1) 1, 2, 4a, and MB refer to Model 1, Model 2, Model 4a, and Model MB foundation modeling configurations.
(2) “1<<2, 4a < MB” indicates, for example, that the response of Model 1 is less than the response of Models 2 and 4a; the
response of Models 2 and 4a are similar; and the response of all models is less than the response of Model MB.
(3) “<<” indicates a comparatively larger difference in response than “<”.
(4) “Similar” indicates that the results do not vary significantly across the model types.
(5) “Varies” indicates that the trend in the results is not clear; some models have larger values in some cases and smaller
values in other cases.
Figures 7-18 through 7-21 summarize maximum displacement envelopes

comparing results across different foundation modeling configurations for all five
building types (MF, SW, SW1, SW2, and SW3). Full scale plots are provided in
Appendix B. Compared in this way, the trends are clearly discernible in which
SSI effects are larger as the building stiffness increases. Response quantities in
the basement levels were consistently the most influenced by alternative
foundation modeling conditions.

Northridge, X-Direction Northridge, Y-Direction
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 1-MF-Stick 2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick 2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick 0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick MB-MF-Stick
-2 -2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Max. Displacement [cm] Max. Displacement [cm]
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 1-SW -Stick 2 1-SW -Stick

2-SW -Stick 2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick 0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick MB-SW -Stick
-2 -2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 1-SW 1-Stick 2 1-SW 1-Stick

2-SW 1-Stick 2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick 0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick MB-SW 1-Stick
-2 -2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Figure 7-18 Comparison of maximum displacement envelopes in each direction for foundation Models
1, 2, 4a, and MB, for each structural system variant (MF, SW, SW1, SW2, and SW3).

Northridge, Interstory Drifts, X-Direction Northridge, Interstory Drifts, Y-Direction
14 14
1-MF-Stick
12 12
2-MF-Stick
10 4a-MF-Stick 10
MB-MF-Stick
Story Number
Story Number
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2 -2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Max. Interstory Drifts [cm/cm] Max. Interstory Drifts [cm/cm]
14 14
12 12
10 10
Story Number
Story Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
14 14
12 12
10 10
Story Number
Story Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
14 14
12 12
10 10
Story Number
Story Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
14 14
12 12
10 10
Story Number
Story Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Figure 7-19 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes in each direction for foundation Models 1, 2,
4a, and MB, for each structural system variant (MF, SW, SW1, SW2, and SW3).

14 14
1-MF-Stick
12 12
2-MF-Stick
10 10 4a-MF-Stick
Floor Number
MB-MF-Stick
Floor Number
8 8
6
6
4
4
1-MF-Stick 2
2 2-MF-Stick
0
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick -2
-2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Normalized Story Shear
Normalized Story Shear
14 14
1-SW -Stick
12 12
2-SW -Stick
10 10 4a-SW -Stick
Floor Number
Floor Number
MB-SW -Stick
8 8
6 6
4 4
1-SW -Stick
2 2-SW -Stick 2
4a-SW -Stick
0 0
MB-SW -Stick
-2 -2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Normalized Story Shear Normalized Story Shear
14 14
12 12 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
10 10
4a-SW 1-Stick
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8 MB-SW 1-Stick
6 6
4 4
1-SW 1-Stick
2 2-SW 1-Stick 2
4a-SW 1-Stick
0 0
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2 -2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
14 14
1-SW 2-Stick
12 12 2-SW 2-Stick
10 10 4a-SW 2-Stick
Floor Number
Floor Number
MB-SW 2-Stick
8 8
6 6
4 4
1-SW 2-Stick
2 2-SW 2-Stick 2
4a-SW 2-Stick
0 0
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2 -2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
14 14
1-SW 3-Stick
12 12 2-SW 3-Stick
10 10 4a-SW 3-Stick
Floor Number
Floor Number
MB-SW 3-Stick
8 8
6 6
4 1-SW 3-Stick 4
2 2-SW 3-Stick 2
4a-SW 3-Stick
0 0
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2 -2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 7-20 Comparison of maximum story shear envelopes in each direction for foundation Models

14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 1-MF-Stick 2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick 2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick 0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick MB-MF-Stick
-2 -2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Peak Floor Accel. [g] Peak Floor Accel. [g]
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14 14
12 12
10 10
Floor Number
Floor Number
8 8
6 6
4 4

-2 -2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Figure 7-21 Comparison of peak floor acceleration envelopes in each direction for foundation Models

7.3.2 Parametric Study Observations
The following general observations from parametric studies of the Sherman Oaks
building were made:
 Observed SSI effects became larger as the building stiffness increased. They
were relatively minor for the moment frame (MF) building, more discernible for
the core shear wall (SW) building, and readily apparent for the stiffest perimeter
shear wall building (SW3).
 Observed SSI effects correlated well with the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio,
h/(VsT); the larger the ratio, the greater the observed SSI effect.
The following additional observations were made, relative to the specific case of
these building variants and these input motions:
 For all building variants in this study, fundamental periods are past the peak
spectral response and located on the descending (i.e., velocity-controlled) branch
of the response spectrum for the Northridge earthquake. As such, any stiffening
in the structure could be assumed to lead to an increase in response.
 Observed differences in modeled periods between the different foundation
models were relatively small for a given structure. A possible exception
occurred in the case of shear wall buildings, in which Model 1 periods were
noticeably less than the other models.
 Large differences were observed between model results in the basement levels.
Different trends were observed in comparisons between superstructure results
and comparisons between basement results.
 As the superstructure stiffened, model-to-model variations in superstructure
response increased such that they approached the magnitude of observed
variations in basement level response. This was particularly noticeable in the
case of peak floor acceleration.
 In the superstructure, Model 4a overall results were the most similar to Model
MB results for all building types. Model 1 and Model 2 were usually
conservative for story shear and peak floor acceleration for all building types.
Model 1 was observed to result in conservative displacements and drifts in the
moment frame building, but unconservative displacements and drifts in the shear
wall buildings.
 In the basement levels, Model 2 results were higher than Models 4a results across
all response quantities. In the case of displacements and peak floor accelerations,
Model 2 results exceeded Model MB results, but in the case of story drift and
story shear, Model MB often had larger values than Model 2.

 In the case of moment frame structures, Model 1 and Model 2 led to comparable
or conservative results relative to Model MB. Therefore, Model 1 and Model 2
represent reasonable alternatives for practical foundation modeling of moment
frame structures.
 In the case of shear wall structures, Model 4a results were most consistent with
Model MB, and Model 2 results conservatively bounded Model MB results.
Therefore, Model 2 and Model 4a represent reasonable alternatives for practical
foundation modeling of shear wall structures.
 In the case of the SW3 shear wall building, the peak story shear in Model 1 was
1.2 times that of Model MB, and the peak floor acceleration of Model 1 was 1.5
times that of Model MB. Shear wall building designs based on Model 1 would
be “overdesigned” for shears and accelerations relative to response characterized
by Model MB.
7.4 Walnut Creek Building
The Walnut Creek building is a10-story structure with no subterranean levels. The
seismic force-resisting system consists of a reinforced concrete shear wall core with
perimeter precast and cast-in-place concrete frames. Construction drawings of the
Walnut Creek building were made available for inspection through the auspices of
the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. The building was designed
in 1970. The plan dimensions of the building are 31.8 m (104 ft) wide by 45.2 m
(148 ft) long. A typical floor plan is shown in Figure 7-22.
Figure 7-22 Walnut Creek building typical floor plan, based on construction
drawings provided by CSMIP.

The gravity system consists of 7 cm (2.75 in) lightweight concrete topping slabs over
7 cm (2.75 in) precast panel slabs supported on precast, prestressed reinforced
concrete beams. A longitudinal elevation of the building is shown in Figure 7-23.
The building measures 39.2 m (128.5 ft) tall from the ground surface to the roof. The
height of the first story is 4.9 m (16 ft), and all other stories are 3.8 m (12.5 ft). Note
that the ground surface is not level at the site, although for simplicity, this detail was
not considered in the structural model. The characteristics of the foundation are
described in Section 7.4.3, below.
Figure 7-23 Walnut Creek building longitudinal elevation, based on construction

drawings provided by CSMIP (Stewart and Stewart, 1997, with
permission).
7.4.1 Site Characterization
A plan view of the Walnut Creek site is shown in Figure 7-24. The ground surface
elevation is approximately 51.8 m (170 ft) above mean sea level. Soil conditions for
the site were obtained from portions of a geotechnical report, prepared by Harding,
Miller, Lawson & Associates (1970), and from a geotechnical report with seismic
refraction investigation of the subsurface soils, prepared by Raney Geotechnical
(1983), in the vicinity of the site. Information from a total of 19 borings ranging in
depth from 1.5 m (5 ft) to 17.4 m (57 ft), and four seismic refraction surveys, were
obtained from within and around the footprint of the Walnut Creek building.
Borings indicated predominantly west-dipping contacts of sandy clays and silts with
variable thicknesses of 0.6 m (2 ft) to 5.5 m (18 ft) overlaying siltstone and sandstone
of the Orinda Formation. The depth of the water table was measured between 6.1 m
(20 ft) and 12.2 m (40 ft) below the ground surface. The average moist unit weight

was taken to be approximately 18.1 kN/m3 (115 lb/ft3). Geophysical data was
developed from the seismic refraction surveys. Shear wave velocities in the soil
layers were estimated based on correlations by Fumal and Tinsley (1985), while the
shear wave velocity in the rock was based on the seismic refraction data presented by
Raney Geotechnical.
Figure 7-24 Plan view of the Walnut Creek site showing borehole and refraction
survey locations used for site characterization (adapted from
Harding, Miller, Lawson & Associates, 1970; Raney Geotechnical,
1983).
Based on available geotechnical information, an interpretation of the soil layering at

the site, in terms of a shear wave velocity profile and material profile, is shown in
Figure 7-25.
7.4.2 Ground Motion Recordings
The Walnut Creek building was instrumented in 1979 by the California Strong
Motion Instrumentation Program and designated CSMIP Station No. 58364.
Instrumentation includes 16 accelerometers at the locations including the ground
floor, third floor, eighth floor, and roof levels. There are two vertical sensors at the
ground level, allowing the base rocking effects to be measured. There are no free-
field instruments in the vicinity of the site.

Figure 7-25 Subsurface characteristics of the Walnut Creek site: (a) shear wave
velocity profile; and (b) material profile (adapted from Harding, Miller,
Lawson & Associates, 1970; Raney Geotechnical, 1983).
Since 1979, five earthquake events have been recorded and processed by CSMIP at
this station. The events, along with peak accelerations for the ground floor and roof
are presented in Table 7-9.
Table 7-9 Summary of Earthquake Events Recorded at the Walnut Creek Building
Ground Floor Roof
Earthquake (g) (g)
N-S E-W V1 V2 N-S E-W V
Livermore 80A 0.030 0.033 0.022 0.023 0.116 0.108 ----
Livermore 80B 0.061 0.048 0.024 0.018 0.137 0.192 ----
1989 Loma Prieta 0.102 0.046 0.053 0.047 0.208 0.164 ----
2007 AlumRock 0.005 0.003 NR NR 0.018 0.015 ----
2008 Alamo 0.029 0.018 NR NR 0.057 0.034 ----
Symbols: N-S=north-south; E-W=east-west; V=vertical; V1=Chan.12 (west); V2=Chan.13 (East); and
NR=no record available.
Instrumentation locations are shown in Figure 7-26. Horizontal translations recorded

at the ground level of the building were assumed to incorporate base-slab averaging
effects due to kinematic interaction. Because the bottom of the foundation is 4.2 m

(14 ft) below the ground level, it is reasonable to assume that embedment effects
were not captured in the recorded motion. Transfer functions derived using the
embedment procedures in Section 3.2 were used to develop foundation input
motions, uFIM, from the recorded motions.
Figure 7-26 CSMIP Station No. 58364: Walnut Creek 10-Story commercial building,
sensor location sketch (CESMD, 2011).
Since there were no free-field instruments in the vicinity of the site, free-field ground
motions, ug, were obtained from the recorded motions using transfer functions to
remove the base-slab averaging effects. The uFIM and ug response spectra for the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake are shown in Figure 7-27.

(a): E-W Direction (b): N-S Direction
Figure 7-27 Response spectra for foundation input motion, uFIM, and free-field motion, ug, at the
Sherman Oaks building, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
7.4.3 Foundation Conditions
The foundation is rectangular in plan, measuring 31.8 m (104 ft) wide by 45.2 m
(148 ft) long. The foundation consists of concrete spread footings, drilled shafts, and
mat elements. A foundation plan developed based on information contained in
construction drawings provided by CSMIP is shown in Figure 7-28.
Figure 7-28 Walnut Creek building foundation plan, based on construction

drawings provided by CSMIP.

The core walls extend 3 m (10 feet) below the ground level, supported on mat
foundation that is 1.2 m (4 feet) thick. The plan dimensions of the mat are 11.6 m
(38 ft) by 25.6 m (84 ft), and the bottom of the mat is a total of 4.3 m (14 feet) below
the ground level surface. Soil above the mat foundation was backfilled with concrete
and sand. Perimeter frame elements terminate at the ground level, where they are
supported on spread footings or belled caissons bearing on rock, and interconnected
with grade beams.
7.4.4 Development of Foundation Springs and Dashpots
The methodologies described in Chapter 2 were applied to the development of

foundation springs and dashpots for the Walnut Creek building. Critical input
parameters included the foundation dimensions, fundamental vibration periods of the
structure, soil properties, and the amplitude of the input motion. Modeling of the
Walnut Creek foundation and site conditions included the following:
 Determination of average effective profile velocity, considering foundation
dimensions, overburden pressures from the structure, and nonlinear effects.
 Determination of the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio for estimating the
significance of soil-structure interaction effects.
 Evaluation of the effects of mat foundation flexibility on foundation impedance.
 Calculation of mat foundation horizontal stiffness and damping coefficients,
considering base slab friction and neglecting passive pressure resistance against
the embedded core walls.
 Calculation of vertical stiffness and damping coefficients for springs under the
mat foundation, considering adjustment for rotational impedance for shallow
foundation elements.
 Calculation of springs and dashpots for the footings and drilled shafts supporting
the perimeter frames.
Average Effective Profile Velocity. Foundation stiffness and damping coefficients

were based on an average effective profile velocity calculated over an effective
profile depth, zp. Table 7-10 summarizes the effective profile depth, zp, the depth
range, and the average effective profile velocity calculated using Equation 2-18 for
each foundation vibration mode over the depth range considered. The maximum
depth considered is greater than zp by the amount of the foundation embedment, D
(i.e., the depth range extends to D + zp). For the specific case of the horizontal base
spring, the depth interval begins at the base of the foundation.
Values Vs, avg in Table 7-10 have not been corrected for overburden pressures due to
the added weight of the structure. Before averaging, measured free-field velocities,
Vs, should be increased to account for the presence of structural overburden.

Table 7-10 Summary of Effective Profile Depths and Average Effective Profile Velocities
for the Walnut Creek Building
zp Depth Range Vs,avg
Vibration Mode Basis (1) (m) (m) (m/s)
Horizontal translation (x and y), base spring BL 8.6 4.3 to 12.9 434.3
Vertical Translation (z) BL 8.6 0 to 12.9 415.9
Rocking along x-axis (xx) 4

B3 L 7.1 0 to 11.3 413.5
Rocking along y-axis (yy) 4

BL3 10.5 0 to 14.8 418.2
Notes: (1) Calculated using mat foundation half-width, B=5.8 m; half-length, L=12.8 m; depth D=4.3 m.
For the Walnut Creek building, the increase in vertical stress due to the weight of the
structure, v, was evaluated at two-foot intervals below the foundation assuming a
2V:1H distribution (Holtz et al., 2010). Overburden-corrected shear wave velocities
below the foundation, Vs, F, were calculated using Equation 2-17, and averaged using
Equation 2-18. Values of average effective profile velocity for both the overburden-
corrected and non-overburden-corrected cases are compared in Table 7-11.
Table 7-11 Comparison of Average Effective Profile Velocities with and without
Correction for Structural Overburden Weight
Vs,avg(1) Vs,F,avg(2)
Z (m/s) (m/s)
Horizontal Translation (x and y) 434.3 517.8
Vertical Translation (z) 415.9 463.7
Rocking along x-axis (xx) 413.5 460.8
Rocking along y-axis (yy) 418.2 465.5
Notes: (1) Vs,avg is the non-overburden-corrected average effective profile velocity.
(2) Vs,F,avg is the overburden-corrected average effective profile velocity.
Structure-to-soil stiffness ratio. Taking the transverse (E-W) direction as critical,

the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, h/(VsT), for the Walnut Creek building is 0.1,
calculated using two-thirds of the modeled building height from foundation to roof,
h = 2/3(43.5 m) = 29.0 m, the average effective profile velocity for rocking about the
xx-axis, corrected for structural overburden, Vs,F,avg = 460.8 m/s (from Table 7-11),
and the fundamental period for the fixed base condition in the transverse direction,
T = 0.66 sec (from system identification, Stewart and Stewart, 1997). Because this
ratio is on the order of 0.1, inertial SSI effects (i.e., period lengthening, foundation
damping) would be expected to be significant.
Mat Foundation Flexibility. The Walnut Creek building has a central core
consisting of shear walls supported by an underlying reinforced concrete mat
foundation that is larger in plan and extends beyond the dimensions of the core.

Extension of the mat foundation beyond the core shear walls introduces flexibility
into the structural foundation elements. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, flexibility in
structural foundation elements can reduce stiffness and radiation damping in the
rocking mode (Iguchi and Luco, 1982).
To evaluate the effects of this flexibility on the resulting foundation impedance, plots
similar to Figure 2-7 (from Iguchi and Luco, 1982) were utilized with a ratio of core
to foundation radius equal to 0.75. Results are shown in Table 7-12, which indicate
that the foundation stiffness ratios are close to one, meaning there is little deviation
from the rigid foundation case. Therefore, the full mat dimensions of 11.6 m (38 ft)
by 25.6 m (84 ft) were used to calculate foundation impedance below the core walls
in the Walnut Creek building.
Table 7-12 Evaluation of Soil-to-Foundation Stiffness Ratios for Flexible Mat Foundation
below Shear Wall Core in the Walnut Creek Building
Ratio
Basis for Core Mat
Equivalent Radius Radius
rc  (1) k (2)
Vibration Mode Radius, rf rc (m) rf (m) rf (Eq. 2-19) k  0
Vertical Translation (z) Af /  7.0 9.7 0.72 100 0.9
Rocking along x-axis (xx) 4 4I f /  9.3 12.0 0.78 188 0.8
Rocking along y-axis (yy) 4 4I f /  5.5 8.1 0.68 59 0.8
Notes: (1) Calculated using Ef =22,894.7 MPa; f =0.2, tf =1.22 m, a0 =0.13, and G based on Vs,F,avg from Table 7-11.
(2) Assessed based on Iguchi and Luco (1982), using rc/rf =0.75 and  =100.
Mat Foundation Horizontal Stiffness and Damping. Calculations for horizontal

stiffness and damping ratios are shown in Table 7-13. Horizontal stiffness
calculations were based on contributions from base friction only, and passive
pressure resistance along the embedded portion of the core walls was neglected.
Because the base shear reaction mobilizes only soil below the embedment depth D,
the effective profile velocity for the horizontal base spring was taken from D to D+zp
(shown in Table 7-10).
In Table 7-13, shear modulus, G, was evaluated from Equation 2-9, using a soil mass
density, s, of 18.1 kN/m3/g, and values of average effective profile velocity
determined using overburden-corrected shear wave velocities below the foundation
(shown in Table 7-11). Values of shear modulus should be reduced to account for
large strain effects associated with nonlinear behavior. Using Table 2-1, assuming
Site Class C, and peak acceleration (at the foundation level) of about 0.1 g from the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the shear modulus reduction factor, G/G0 = 0.95.

Table 7-13 Calculation of Mat Foundation Stiffness and Damping Parameters for the Walnut Creek Building
G(1) Ksur (2)  a0(3)  sur emb
Eq. 2-9 Table 2-2a Table Eq. Table Table Table Dynamic Stiffness Dashpot Coefficient
Spring/Dashpot (MPa) (kN/m; kN-m/rad) 2-2b 2-15 2-3a 2-3a 2-3b Eq. 2-14a Eq. 2-13a
469.4 2.24e7 --- 0.11 1 0.057 --- k x ,base   x K x , sur cx,base  2k x ,base  sur 
  
k x ,base , cx ,base 

469.4 2.40e7 --- 0.11 1 0.053 --- k y ,base   y K y , sur cy ,base  2k y ,base  sur 
  
k y ,base , c y ,base 
Vertical, z    s 
376.4 2.35e7 1.22 0.12 1 --- 0.111 k z   z K z , sur z cz  2kz  emb 
 kz , cz    
Rocking about x-axis    s 
371.6 8.49e8 1.70 0.12 1 --- 0.005 k xx   xx K xx , sur xx cxx  2kxx  emb 
 kxx , cxx    
Rocking about y-axis    s 
379.3 2.78e9 1.54 0.12 0.99 --- 0.002 k yy   yy K yy , sur yy cyy  2k yy  emb 
k yy , c yy    
Notes: (1) Calculated using a shear modulus reduction factor, G/G0=0.95 for the Loma Prieta earthquake; for other events G/G0=1.0.
(2) Calculated using overall foundation half-width, B=5.8 m; half-length, L=12.8 m; and =0.33.
(3) Calculated at a frequency corresponding to the first-mode period of the flexible-base structure (from system identification, Stewart and Stewart, 1997).

A modulus reduction factor of 1.0 was used for the other smaller events. Other
parameters were determined using the equations referenced in the table.
Dashpot coefficients were determined using Equation 2-13a and the total foundation
damping ratio. The total foundation damping ratio is equal to the sum of the
radiation damping ratio (determined using equations in Chapter 2) and the soil
hysteretic damping ratio, s. For the Walnut Creek site, the soil hysteretic damping
ratio was evaluated using Menq (2003), and determined to be 0.01.
Mat Foundation Vertical Stiffness and Damping. Calculation of overall vertical

and rotational stiffness and damping ratios is shown in Table 7-13, using values of
average effective profile velocity based on overburden-corrected shear wave
velocities (shown in Table 7-11). Vertical springs were distributed over the footprint
of the foundation, as shown in Figure 7-29, using a vertical stiffness intensity that is
normalized by area (Equation 2-20). Stiffness intensities were adjusted near the
edges of the foundation to match the overall rocking stiffness values given in Table
7-13 (using Equation 2-21 and an end length ratio of Re = 0.4). The stiffness of any
individual spring in the model was then computed as the product of stiffness intensity
and the tributary area for the spring.
k zi  kN/m3  czi  kN-sec/m3 

96 275
308 778
418 1,235
526 1,697
Figure 7-29 Vertical spring and dashpot intensities distributed over the mat
foundation of the Walnut Creek building. Solid lines represent
tributary area boundaries.
Vertical stiffness intensities in the central zone of the mat foundation were computed
using Equation 2-20a. Edge intensities were increased by factors of Rk = 5.48 for the
xx-direction and Rk = 3.21 for the yy-direction to correct for underestimation of
rotational stiffness (Equations 2-21a, 2-21b). Corner intensities were evaluated as the

average of the intensities in the xx- and yy-directions. Dashpot intensities were
calculated based on stiffness intensities using Equation 2-20b, and reduced by Rc
(Equations 2-21c, 2-21d), to correct for overestimation of rotational damping.
Footing and Drilled Shaft Stiffness and Damping. Individual springs and dashpots
were calculated for horizontal and vertical translation modes for the spread footings
and drilled shafts supporting the columns of the perimeter frames. For simplicity,
spread footings and drilled shafts were treated as individual shallow square
foundations with dimensions of 3.05 m (10 ft) by 3.05 m (10 ft). Calculations were
similar to those presented for the mat foundation, using the same soil parameters.
For reference, calculated values were 3.91 x 106 kN/m for horizontal springs (kx and
ky); 4.97 x 106 kN/m for vertical springs (kz); 1.68 x 103 kN-s/m for horizontal
dashpots (cx and cy); and 2.75 x 104 kN-s/m for vertical dashpots (cz).
7.4.5 Analysis Results
The Walnut Creek building was analyzed in OpenSees (McKenna, 1997),

incorporating foundation springs and dashpots described above. Details for the
development and validation of the model are described in Appendix C. To expedite
analyses and post-processing of results, the three-dimensional model was collapsed
into a simplified two-dimensional model. Adjustments to the shear and flexural
stiffness for cracked concrete were used to produce a reasonably close match to the
periods and displacement histories in recordings from the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. Based on validation studies, the model was considered a reasonable
engineering approximation for the Walnut Creek building.
Because the Walnut Creek core wall foundation has limited embedment, and there
are no basement levels, multi-support excitation along embedded portion of the
building was not considered. As a result, Model MB converges to Model 4 (bathtub
model). Using this model as a basis, alternative modeling configurations were
developed and studied, and the resulting response quantities were compared for the
following variants:
 Model 2, which included explicit modeling of the subterranean foundation
elements, assuming a fixed base at the foundation level and omitting the
surrounding soil; and
 Model 1, which ignored the response of the subterranean foundation elements by
assuming a rigid base at the ground level.
Implementation of Model 4 (bathtub model), Model 2, and Model 1 for the Walnut
Creek building is illustrated in Figure 7-30. Because of the minimal embedment of
the Walnut Creek building structure, Model 1 and Model 2 are nearly identical.

Figure 7-30 Schematic illustration of Model 4 (bathtub); Model 2 (fixed at
foundation level); and Model 1 (fixed at ground surface) for the
Walnut Creek building.
Fundamental periods of vibration for each of the model variants are shown in Table
7-14. The resulting modeled periods were only modestly affected by different
idealizations of the soil-foundation interface (i.e., Model 1 and Model 2 have the
same fundamental period; Model 4 is slightly more flexible with a longer
fundamental period).
Modeling Configurations for the Walnut Creek Building
Fundamental Period
(sec)
Model E-W Direction
Model 4 (bathtub) 0.83
Model 2 (fixed at foundation) 0.78
Model 1 (fixed at grade) 0.78

Comparisons of computed acceleration and displacement histories, maximum
displacement, drift ratios, story shear coefficients, and peak floor accelerations
between Model 4 (taken as Baseline Model MB), Model 2, and Model 1 are shown in
Figure 7-31 and Figure 7-32.
In Figure 7-31, the fixed-base models (Model 1 and Model 2) capture roof
acceleration and displacement histories reasonably well, but the phasing was quite
different. Observed differences in phasing are likely due to differences in higher
mode response.
Figure 7-31 Comparison of roof acceleration and displacement histories for

Model 4 (taken as Baseline Model MB), Model 1, and Model 2 for the
Walnut Creek building.
In Figure 7-32, there is a general trend towards over-prediction of response by the

fixed-base models (Model 1 and Model 2) relative to Model 4 (taken as Baseline
Model MB). Observed differences were largest in peak floor acceleration response,
and are likely the result of differences in higher-mode effects.

Figure 7-32 Comparison of maximum relative displacement, peak floor acceleration,
maximum story drift, and story shear coefficients for Model 4 (taken as Baseline
Model MB), Model 1, and Model 2 for the Walnut Creek building.
The presence of two vertical instruments at the ground level allowed for the
evaluation of base rotation, and computation of lateral roof displacement due to base
rocking. High-pass filtering of the base rocking data, which was needed to produce a
physically meaningful result, is described in Appendix C. Comparison of modeled
versus recorded roof displacement histories due to base rotation are shown in Figure
7-33.
Figure 7-33 Comparison of modeled versus recorded roof displacement histories

due to base rotation of the Walnut Creek building.

In the figure, the numerical model captured the maximum amplitude and approximate
frequency content of the observed rocking data. The phasing was reasonably well
predicted, although there were observed differences in amplitude over the length of
the record that can be attributed to discrepancies between predicted and observed
structural responses in upper levels due to standard modeling uncertainty. These
results showed that, in general, the foundation impedance functions for the Walnut
Creek building had about the correct level of flexibility.
7.5 Example Applications Summary and Conclusions
Based upon previous findings from Naeim et al. (2008), Tileylioglu et al. (2010), and
observations from example applications and parametric studies herein, the following
conclusions can be made:
 MB-type models have an encouraging ability to match observed building
responses from recorded motions with modest tuning of structural parameters
(e.g., damping ratios, building masses, or element stiffnesses). These results
suggest that the relatively simple equivalent-linear spring and dashpot approach
for SSI modeling presented in Chapter 2 can provide a satisfactory representation
of foundation impedance.
 Of the model types studied, Model 4, including foundation springs and dashpots
within a rigid bathtub element, provided the best match to MB-type models, and
is a reasonable and practical simplification to variable support excitation.
Model 2, which omits foundation springs, but explicitly includes modeling of the
subterranean structure, was the next best alternative. Model 1 results were
observed to vary significantly from MB-type model results, but generally
provided a conservative estimate of force-based demands for design use.
Model 3 results were highly variable, and use of Model 3 approaches to
foundation modeling is not recommended.
 Above-ground building responses, as measured by envelopes of peak response
parameters such as displacement, drift, story shear, and floor acceleration, were
only modestly affected by soil-structure interaction effects in the buildings
studied. The effects became more significant as the stiffness of the
superstructure increased. In contrast, below-ground responses were very
sensitive to soil-structure interaction effects and foundation modeling
assumptions (i.e., kinematic ground motion descriptions and spring/dashpot
configurations). Sensitivity of below-ground response was observed for all
structures, across the full parametric range of stiffnesses studied.

Chapter 8
Conclusions and Recommendations
In this chapter, conclusions and recommendations from prior chapters are distilled
into specific, step-by-step procedures to guide the implementation of soil-structure
interaction modeling in a design setting. Section 8.1 answers the three questions
posed in Chapter 1, which are intended to help guide decisions regarding when SSI is
likely to be important and what geotechnical information is needed to model SSI
effects. Section 8.2 provides guidance on implementation of inertial and kinematic
interaction effects. Section 8.3 describes further study and future research needed to
improve the state of knowledge for soil-structure interaction.
8.1 When is Consideration of Soil-Structure Interaction Important?
In Chapter 1, three questions were posed regarding implementation of SSI. In this

section, those questions are answered, along with references to more detailed
information.
Question 1: When is the use of foundation springs and dashpots important, and
which structural response parameters are affected?
The structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, h/(VsT), can be used as a relative measure for
determining when SSI effects will become significant. In this expression, h is the
structure height, Vs is the soil shear wave velocity; and T is the fixed-base building
period. In applying the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, values of h, Vs, and T for a
given soil-foundation-structure system are not unique. The following values should
be used:
 Height. Height, h, is the effective height to the center of mass for the first mode
shape, taken as approximately two-thirds of the modeled building height.
 Shear wave velocity. Shear wave velocity should be taken as the average
effective profile velocity, Vs, avg, calculated based on overburden-corrected shear
wave velocities below the foundation, Vs, F (z). Guidance on calculating average
effective profile velocities is provided in Section 2.2.2 and illustrated in
Chapter 7.
 Period. Period should be taken as the best estimate value of the fixed-based
building period in the direction under consideration. The structure-to-soil
stiffness ratio should be evaluated separately in each direction.
GCR 12-917-21 8: Conclusions and Recommendations 8-1

When h/(VsT) > 0.1, SSI can significantly lengthen the building period and modify
(i.e., generally increase) damping in the system. This will modify the design base
shear (up or down, depending on spectral shape) and the distribution of force and
deformation demands within the structure, relative to a fixed-base analysis. The use
of springs and dashpots to represent the flexibility and damping at the soil-foundation
interface will be most significant for stiff structural systems such as shear walls and
braced frames.
When using the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, it is important to recognize that the
ratio is an approximate relative measure, and not an absolute criterion. Even when
h/(VsT) < 0.1, relative distributions of moments and shear forces in a building can be
modified relative to the fixed-base condition, particularly in dual systems, structures
with significant higher-mode responses, and subterranean levels of structures.
Additional information is provided in Chapter 2, and SSI effects on other building
response quantities are investigated in Chapter 7.
Question 2: Under what conditions is consideration of the differences between

foundation input motions and free-field ground motions important?
Foundation motions differ from free-field ground motions because of kinematic

interaction effects resulting from the presence of stiff foundation elements on or in
the soil. Kinematic interaction includes base-slab averaging and embedment effects
in which the stiffness and strength of the foundation elements cause averaging or
reductions in localized maxima of spatially variable motions that would have
otherwise occurred within the footprint of the foundation.
Base-slab averaging effects become important within the period range of engineering
interest for foundation sizes (measured as an equivalent foundation half width) of
about 20 m (66 ft) or larger for typical soil or weathered rock sites in California.
Embedment effects are sensitive to the depth of embedment, and typically become
important when a structure has two or more subterranean levels. Both base-slab
averaging and embedment effects principally impact short period spectral ordinates
(at periods less than approximately 1.0 sec). Base-slab averaging and embedment
effects are introduced in Chapter 3. Implementation in standards and guidelines is
described in Chapter 4.
Inertial interaction effects are not a significant contributor to differences between

foundation motions and free-field motions, except in a narrow frequency range
centered on the fundamental frequency of the SSI system.
8-2 8: Conclusions and Recommendations GCR 12-917-21

Question 3: What field and laboratory investigations are necessary to develop
foundation springs and dashpots for SSI analysis?
When foundation springs and dashpots are to be implemented in an analysis, it is

necessary to have an engineering characterization of the soil stratigraphy (i.e., soil
types, layer thicknesses, depth to groundwater, depth to rock), seismic shear wave
velocities, and appropriate shear strength parameters for soil materials in the vicinity
of the foundation. In general, this type of information is routinely developed in
geotechnical investigations, so the scope of site investigations to support SSI analysis
is not significantly different than most typical investigations. The interpretation of
soil profile data for the development of foundation springs and dashpots is described
in Chapter 2. Checklists guiding the collection of geotechnical information for SSI
analyses are provided in Chapter 6, and examples of the use of this data are provided
in Chapter 7.
8.2 Summary of Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Procedures
In this section, procedures for developing springs and dashpots, modifying ground
motions due kinematic interaction, and including soil-structure interaction in
response history analyses are summarized, along with references to more detailed
information.
8.2.1 Developing Springs and Dashpots
The steps for developing springs and dashpots in SSI analyses are summarized as
follows:
1. Develop the required input parameters for analysis:
a. Geotechnical and shear wave velocity profiles. Examples of the type of
information that is required are given in Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-25.
Uncertainty in the shear wave velocity profile should be considered on the
basis of scatter in data from measurements at the site.
b. Shear strength parameters and their variation with depth. Below the ground
water table, undrained strength parameters are required. Drained strength
parameters are generally acceptable above the ground water table.
Variability in shear strengths should be considered based on the range
observed in material-specific testing.
c. Poisson’s ratio, (. Can generally be taken as 0.3 for sands and 0.45 for
clays.
d. Soil hysteretic damping ratio, (s). Strain-dependent soil damping can be
measured using site-specific dynamic material testing, but for most projects
can be taken from existing empirical relationships. Several such

relationships are summarized in Kramer (1996). More recent relationships
are presented by Darendeli (2001) and Menq (2003). These relations are for
damping as a function of shear strain. For most design applications in the
Western United States, strain levels between about 0.1% to 0.5% would be a
reasonable, first-order estimate.
e. Foundation information. Required information includes gross dimensions
(e.g., length, width, depth), the foundation types envisioned for the project
(e.g., mats, inter-connected footings, piles), and the degree of connectivity
between foundation elements (e.g., tie beams, floor slabs). This information
should be developed in cooperation with the structural engineer.
f. Building period and mass. Fundamental mode periods are needed for the
two primary axes of the building. The building mass should include dead
load and the live load expected to be present during earthquake shaking.
Approximate estimates of period and mass are generally sufficient and
should be obtained from the structural engineer.
g. NEHRP site class and ground motion level. Site class can be developed from
the velocity profile using the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m
(Vs30). The primary ground motion parameter for the development of soil
springs is peak ground acceleration (PGA) in the free-field.
2. Evaluate the average effective profile velocity for calculation of foundation
stiffness values. For shallow foundations, proceed as follows:
a. For heavily loaded foundations, the overburden pressure due to the weight of
the structure will modify shear wave velocities relative to values measured in
the free-field. A correction for overburden effects can be made using
Equation 2-17.
b. Calculate the effective foundation sizes B eA and B eI using Equations 2-18.
c. Calculate the average effective profile velocity, Vs, avg, over profile depths
zp = B eA for horizontal springs and zp = B eI for rotational springs. Details are
provided in Section 2.2.2. Example applications are provided in Section
7.2.4 and Section 7.4.4.
d. Apply an appropriate shear wave velocity (or shear modulus) reduction to
account for large strain effects using Table 2-1.
e. Repeat as needed to develop alternative values of effective velocity that
account for uncertainty in the soil profile.
3. Calculate the static stiffness of the foundation for each vibration mode, j.
Vibration modes are designated as: horizontal (x and y), vertical (z), and
rotational (xx and yy).

a. Calculate the stiffness of a shallow foundation for a surface condition (i.e.,
not including embedment effects), Kj,sur, using the equations in Table 2-2a.
b. If applicable, calculate the stiffness modifier for embedment effects, j, using
equations in Table 2-2b.
c. The modified stiffness for embedment is taken as the product of Kj,sur and j.
d. Repeat the calculations as needed using the range of effective velocities that
account for uncertainty in the soil profile.
4. Apply dynamic stiffness modifiers, j, and calculate damping ratios, j:
a. Calculate the angular frequency corresponding to the first mode period of the
structure (T) as  = 2/T. For three-dimensional analyses, the period can be
taken as the average of the first mode periods in each orthogonal direction.
b. Calculate the dimensionless frequency, a0, using Equation 2-15.
c. Calculate the dynamic stiffness modifier, j, using equations in Table 2-3a.
d. Calculate radiation damping ratios, j, using equations in Table 2-3a for
surface foundations, or Table 2-3b for embedded foundations.
5. Evaluate frequency-dependent spring and dashpot (impedance) coefficients:
a. Stiffness, kj, can be taken as the product of the static stiffness, Kj,sur, the
modifier for embedment, j, and the dynamic stiffness modifier, j, using
Equation 2-14a.
b. Dashpot coefficient, cj, can be evaluated from radiation damping ratios, j,
using Equation 2-13a.
c. Repeat as needed for the range of static stiffnesses that account for
uncertainty in the soil profile.
6. Evaluate limiting spring forces (i.e., capacities), which depend on the strength of
the foundation soils, as described in Section 2.2.4:
a. For vertical springs, the capacity is the unfactored foundation bearing
capacity.
b. For horizontal springs at the base-slab level, the capacity is derived from
shear-sliding resistance at the soil-foundation interface.
c. For basement walls, the capacity is derived using passive earth pressure
theory.
d. Repeat as needed to account for uncertainty in shear strength parameters.
7. Distribute vertical springs and dashpots around the foundation:

a. Calculate stiffness and damping intensities kzi and czi using Equations 2-20a
and 2-20b.
b. Select a value for the end length ratio, Re, (typically 0.3 to 0.5).
c. Calculate the spring and dashpot amplifier, Rk, and dashpot reduction factor,
Rc, using Equations 2-21a through 2-21d.
d. Apply stiffness intensity Rk kzi and dashpot intensity RkRc czi within the
end regions.
e. Evaluate individual springs and dashpots based on the appropriate intensity
multiplied by the tributary area (at each location within the foundation
footprint).
f. Repeat as needed for the range of stiffness and dashpot values that account
for uncertainty in the soil profile.
8. Distribute horizontal springs and dashpots around the footprint of the foundation:
a. The horizontal spring at the base-slab level is evaluated as kj,sur = kj/j and is
applied at the base-slab level. A similar procedure is applied for damping.
b. For embedded foundations, the remaining lateral stiffness is distributed over
the depth of the embedment (e.g., height of basement walls). The remaining
stiffness is taken as kj(1–1/j), as specified in Section 2.2.3 (similar for
damping).
Procedures for deep (e.g., pile) foundations, described in Section 2.3, are similar to
those presented above for shallow foundations. Differences include the depth range
over which dynamic properties are evaluated; the equations used to calculate static
stiffness, dynamic modifiers, and damping ratios; and the need for group modifiers in
the case of pile groups. Computer programs (e.g., DYNA6, Western Engineering,
2011; SASSI, Lysmer et al., 1999) can perform Step 2 through Step 5 for finite
element analyses, utilizing procedures similar to those discussed in this report. The
DYNA6 program can also be used for analysis of pile impedance as well.
An important consideration when deep foundation elements (e.g., piles) are combined
with shallow foundation elements (e.g., spread footings or mats) is whether or not
resistance from both shallow and deep foundation elements can be combined. If the
soil is expected to settle away from the shallow foundation elements (e.g., the case of
consolidating soils and end-bearing piles), then lateral load resistance should be
derived on the basis of the piles, pile caps, and basement walls only, and the
resistance provided by shallow foundation elements should be ignored.

8.2.2 Modifying Ground Motions due to Kinematic Interaction
The steps for modifying ground motions due to kinematic interaction are summarized
as follows:
1. Collect the required input for the analysis:
a. Specification of seismic demand. Determine if seismic demands for design
are to be specified in the form of an acceleration response spectrum a set of
ground motion acceleration time histories.
b. Foundation Dimensions. Determine the area of foundation, as represented
by B eA , and the embedment depth, D.
c. Shear wave velocity profile. Determine shear wave velocities to depth, D.
2. Calculate the transfer function for base-slab averaging:
a. Transfer function, Hu(), is calculated using Equation 3-3 and Equation 3-4.
Input parameters include B eA and a.
b. Parameter, a, is evaluated using Equation 3-5. This base-slab averaging
model is calibrated for B eA in the range of 15 m to 40 m.
3. Calculate the transfer function for embedment (if D > 0). The transfer function,
Hu(), for embedment is calculated using Equations 3-6a through 3-6d. Input
parameters include depth, D, and the average effective profile velocity, Vs, avg,
over that depth.
4. For each frequency, , the combined transfer function ordinate for base-slab
averaging and embedment is taken as the product of the results from (2) and (3).
5. Modify free-field ground motions to foundation input motions:
a. Calculate response spectrum modifiers using Equation 3-7a or Equation
3-7b, which relate the ratio of foundation to free-field response spectral
ordinates to the transfer function at the corresponding frequency.
b. Modify acceleration time histories, as needed, using the procedures in
Section 3.4. Note the limitations described in Section 3.4 are for ground
motions dominated by long-period energy (e.g., soft soils and near-fault
effects).
8.2.3 Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction in Response History

Analyses
Summary guidance for implementing soil-structure interaction in response history

analyses includes the following:
1. As a minimum, the subterranean levels of a structural system (if present) should
be included in the structural model that is fixed at the base. Seismic excitation

can be specified using the free-field motion or a foundation input motion derived
considering kinematic interaction effects. This corresponds to Model 2
illustrated in Figure 6-2. This approach neglects inertial SSI effects.
2. Based on current software capabilities, inertial SSI effects can be incorporated
into the structural model in a practical manner using a “bathtub” configuration.
In this approach, springs and dashpots are developed for the foundation system,
each of which is connected to a rigid bathtub surrounding the foundation.
Seismic excitation is applied to the bathtub using the free-field motion or a
foundation input motion derived considering kinematic interaction effects. This
corresponds to Model 4 illustrated in Figure 6-2.
3. The most complete modeling that can be implemented, within the context of
substructure methods of analysis, extends the bathtub model to include the effects
of multi-support excitation along the basement walls. This corresponds to the
Baseline Model (Model MB) illustrated in Figure 6-2. Multi-support excitation
requires an analysis of wave propagation in the free-field over the depth of
embedment. Depth-dependent motions from wave propagation analyses are
applied as displacements at the ends of the horizontal foundation springs. Depth-
dependent motions inherently include the effects of embedment described in
Section 3.2, and should be further adjusted for base-slab averaging.
8.3 Future Research Needs
Future research needs in soil-structure interaction have been organized into two
general thematic areas. The first theme involves relatively short-term
recommendations expanding on current studies to: (1) provide tangible insights into
the benefits of SSI analysis for owners and practicing engineers; and (2) further
explore the benefits and limitations of SSI response history analysis procedures,
possibly leading to improved procedures. The second theme involves relatively long-
term recommendations intended to address fundamental limitations in the state of SSI
knowledge, which limit the accuracy and reliability of SSI models available for use
in engineering practice.
8.3.1 Theme 1: Expansion of Current Studies
Example applications presented in Chapter 7 presented case studies on buildings with

available earthquake recordings. This effectively limited range of possible structural
configurations that could be investigated to the types of structural systems for which
data were available. In particular, case-study buildings had modest SSI effects and
lacked strongly nonlinear responses. Additional studies should be performed on a
common building configuration that is specifically selected to produce large SSI
effects.

One such example might include a low-rise dual system building (i.e., shear wall plus
moment frame system) with a basement. The building could be designed using a
fixed base model (i.e., Model 2 from Figure 6-2) using a typical design spectrum and
then redesigned using a bathtub model (i.e., Model 4 from Figure 6-2) for the same
design spectrum.
Both large-amplitude and modest-amplitude ground motions could be applied to the

model to evaluate the effects of nonlinearity in the structural response on the impact
of SSI effects. Alternative SSI element configurations that better account for uplift
and nonlinear soil behavior, as described in Section 2.4, could also be applied to
assess their relative impact on elastic-plastic procedures. Analysis using a direct
approach (as opposed to a substructure approach) could be performed, especially in
the case of strongly nonlinear response.
Expanded studies on such a building could be used to provide quantitative

comparisons of the effects of different foundation modeling approaches on structural
member sizes and, ultimately, construction costs.
8.3.2 Theme 2: Research to Address Knowledge Gaps
Research needs for expanding the state of knowledge for soil-structure interaction are
as follows:
 The foundation damping model of Veletsos et al. (various) produces different
results than similar models by others. A critical examination of the derivation of
that model is needed, followed by the development of equations for foundation
damping that properly consider hysteretic damping from soil response, radiation
damping from rotational and translational vibration modes, and the sensitivity of
radiation damping to different soil stiffness profiles. This problem is discussed
in Section 2.1.
 The rotational stiffness of shallow foundation systems with non-rigid structural
foundation elements is poorly understood. In particular, the effects of coupled
versus uncoupled rotations at the base of lateral-load bearing elements on
radiation damping and overall system impedance need to be investigated. This
problem is discussed in Section 2.2.3.
 The impedance of pile-supported foundations is poorly understood for realistic
pile and soil conditions, especially for pile groups. Elasto-dynamic solutions for
piles in idealized soil profiles exist in the literature, but are not used in practice,
in part because they only apply at low displacement levels. The discrete element
models that are used (e.g., LPILE, APILE) are poorly constrained for stiffness,
and are intended for non-seismic problems. Next-generation element models for
dynamic loading of piles are needed that accurately capture the stiffness from

elasto-dynamic analyses and the capacity from discrete element models. This
problem is discussed in Section 2.3.
 The kinematic interaction problem for pile-supported mat foundations subjected
to incoherent wave fields has not been explored to a sufficient degree. Data from
Japan suggest that existing models (for base-slab averaging and kinematic
response of pile foundations) are unable to capture observed foundation/free-field
transfer functions, which decay rapidly with frequency. This problem is
discussed in Section 3.3.
 The conversion of transfer functions, derived from kinematic interaction
analyses, to ratios of response spectra currently relies on guidelines provided in
FEMA 440, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures
(FEMA, 2005). A relatively robust statistical model is needed for the
relationships between these ordinates as a function of frequency and ground
motion characteristics. This problem is discussed in Section 3.4.
 Values of the R-factor used in force-based methods for seismic design are based
on engineering judgment, considering observations of building performance in
past earthquakes and anticipated performance of similarly designed buildings in
future earthquakes. Nonlinear response (without collapse) of good performing
systems is used to justify high R-values. However, for some buildings, good
performance may result, in part, from soil-structure interaction effects that also
serve to reduce seismic demands. SSI effects may be partially reflected in
current values of the R-factor, resulting in a potential for double-counting. There
is a need to revisit the definition of R factors with respect to SSI effects, to make
sure that the specified values represent the effects of structural ductility alone.
This issue should be considered in the implementation of NIST GCR 12-917-20,
Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced Seismic Design Criteria for
New Buildings (NIST, 2012). This problem is discussed in Section 4.1.
 Available experimental data described in Chapter 5 should be distilled into a
common format of impedance ordinates, and compared to a consistent set of
predictions utilizing the procedures and parameter selection protocols given in
this report.
 Case studies of buildings with recordings from seismic instrumentation are
extremely valuable. Unfortunately, current protocols for structural
instrumentation seldom provide the information needed for SSI studies, so
additional data are needed. At a minimum, sensors are needed to record
structural translations at the foundation and roof, at least two vertical sensors on
the foundation to record rocking, and a ground instrument near the building.

Appendix A
Sherman Oaks Building Model
Development
This appendix provides detailed information on the structural modeling and
calibration for the Sherman Oaks building example application presented in
Chapter 7.
A.1 Baseline Model Development
Response history analysis of a three-dimensional model of the soil-foundation-

structure system of the Sherman Oaks building was performed using OpenSees, Open
System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (McKenna, 1997; OpenSees, 2011).
This model was based on a previous OpenSees structural model of the building
provided by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), and
United States Geological Survey (USGS). Construction drawings of the Sherman
Oaks building were made available for inspection through the auspices of CSMIP.
The structural system and foundation configuration of the Sherman Oaks building are
Renderings of the Sherman Oaks building configuration are provided in Figure A-1.
The renderings include cut-away views showing details in the first story, basement,
and foundation regions. The structural configuration in the first story and basement
levels were modeled in a simplified manner to keep the structural modeling aspects
tractable, and to focus on comparisons between variations in the idealization of the
soil-foundation interface.
In the first story of the building, the one-story extension of the structure along the
south longitudinal face of the building (shown in Figure A-1) was not included in the
structural model (i.e., both the mass and the stiffness of the one-story extension were
excluded). In the basement region, the geometry was simplified such that the shear
walls were placed in-line with the perimeter frames of the superstructure. This kept
the footprint of the model at 21.9 m wide by 57.6 m long (72 ft by 189 ft) from
foundation to roof. Although this geometric simplification was made, the flexibility
inherent in the real configuration was captured through elastic connecting springs
modeled with the stiffness properties of the horizontal slab components that
interconnect the frame lines of the superstructure with the basement wall lines. This
is shown schematically in Figure A-2.
GCR 12-917-21 A: Sherman Oaks Building Model Development A-1

Figure A-1 Renderings of the Sherman Oaks building, including cut-away views showing
structural details in the first story, basement, and foundation regions.
Figure A-2 Schematic illustration of elastic springs connecting the framing lines of the
superstructure with the wall lines in the basement levels.
A-2 A: Sherman Oaks Building Model Development GCR 12-917-21

The superstructure of the Sherman Oaks building model is a three-dimensional frame
of fiber elements (nonlinearBeamColumn in OpenSees). The model is a centerline
model that does not include finite joint elements. The two basement levels include
fiber element beams and columns, basement slabs, shear walls, and basement grade
beams. A rigid diaphragm constraint is used at each floor level.
Fiber elements are composed of both core and cover concrete materials (Concrete04
in OpenSees) and reinforcing steel materials (Steel02 in OpenSees). Fiber elements
model flexural behavior using nonlinear concrete and steel material models. Shear
and torsional flexibilities are modeled to be linear-elastic, and are combined together
into a single component model using the SectionAggregator approach in OpenSees.
An expected yield strength of 462 MPa (67 ksi) was used for the grade 60 steel
(Melchers, 1999). This value is slightly lower than, but still comparable to, an
expected yield strength of 517 MPa (75 ksi), which is suggested in ASCE/SEI 41-06
(ASCE, 2007). An expected initial stiffness of 20,000 GPa (29,000 ksi) was used,
along with a post-yield hardening stiffness of 2% of the initial stiffness. A nominal
concrete strength of 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) was included in the model, without provision
for expected strength. Use of nominal concrete strength in lieu of expected strength
was judged to have minimal impact on the structural response predictions because of
the mild nonlinearity experienced in the Northridge earthquake.
The calculated building mass included the mass of all structural elements (beams,
columns, and slabs); 0.5 kPa (10 psf) for partitions; 0.6 kPa (12 psf) for mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing components; and 25% of the design live load taken as 0.6
kPa (12 psf) for a design live load of 2.5 kPa (50 psf). These masses are accounted
for both above and below grade.
Damping was modeled as 4.5% Rayleigh damping, anchored to the first and second
mode periods of the building (2.9 sec and 1.0 sec, respectively). This level of
damping is a calibrated value, which is discussed below. In developing the Rayleigh
damping matrix, degrees-of-freedom associated with foundation springs were
excluded. This was necessary to avoid double counting of foundation damping
because the soil-foundation model included dashpots at these degrees-of-freedom.
Basement shear walls are 30 cm (1 ft) thick, modeled in the simplified manner
described above (and shown in Figure A-2). Figure A-2 shows how the moment
resisting frame, simplified shear wall, and slab elements connect to the framing nodes
in the two basement levels of the building. At each connection location, the nodes
are placed at the same coordinates in the model (but are shown offset in Figure A-2
to illustrate the connectivity). Vertical and rotational degrees of freedom are
constrained together for all nodes at each connection location. Figure A-2 also
depicts the rigid beams needed to support the simplified shear wall models and the
soil springs at the base of the building (soil dashpots are not shown). Stiffness in the

plane of the shear walls was computed based on shear behavior using G=0.4Ec, as
recommended in PEER/ATC-72-1, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings (ATC, 2010), Ec=23,200 MPa (3,370 ksi), and
a factor to account for the cracked properties of the wall (another calibrated value
discussed below). The out-of-plane stiffness of the walls was not included in the
model.
The stiffness and damping properties of the soil are modeled using vertical and
horizontal springs and dashpots, as described in Chapter 7. Soil springs are linear-
elastic (with model variant MB.2 considering the no-tension gap springs). Dashpots
are linear in all model variations.
The depth-variable nature of input ground motions over the height of the basement
walls were specified using the MultipleSupportExcitation approach in OpenSees. In
this approach, the acceleration, velocity, and displacement acceleration-histories are
all specified at each subterranean level. Specifying each ground motion history
removes the need to integrate motions within OpenSees.
A.2 Baseline Model Calibration
The Sherman Oaks Baseline Model (MB) was calibrated against recordings from the
1994 Northridge earthquake. The calibrated model was then used to predict the
response of the building for the 1992 Landers and 1987 Whittier earthquakes to
assess the stability of the calibration.
The first stage of calibration targeted the shear stiffness of the reinforced concrete
walls and slabs in the subterranean levels. A multiplier on the theoretical shear
modulus of the uncracked concrete, Gc, was used as the calibration parameter to
match near-ground response. A definitive ratio of cracked to uncracked stiffness in
shear walls is not available in the literature. For example, ASCE/SEI 41-06 suggests
that the full (unreduced) value of Gc be used for both cracked and uncracked walls.
PEER/ATC-72-1 states that the cracked shear stiffness should be “substantially
lower” than the uncracked shear stiffness, but there are limited test data available for
use in quantifying this ratio. It was found that, over the range of 0.25 to 0.40
considered, near-ground response was not highly sensitive to this parameter, and
acceptable results were achieved with a stiffness multiplier of 0.25.
The second stage of calibration targeted the building period. Adjustments to the
structural mass and stiffness were used as the calibration parameters for the modeled
building period. The structure mass was modified through the application of a scale
factor. In fiber element models, stiffness is not an input parameter, but is computed
from component dimensions and material properties. Component stiffness was
adjusted through modification of the stiffness of reinforcing steel within the fiber
element model. This approach is not meant to suggest that the rebar stiffness is

highly variable; rather it is an indirect approach to modifying the stiffness of
reinforced concrete elements, which is known to be highly variable (Haselton et al.,
2011)
The initial modeled building period was found to be too low. To increase the period,
final calibration factors included multipliers of 0.7 on rebar stiffness and 1.0 on mass.
Table A-1 compares the first mode periods of the building in each direction with the
periods predicted by the Baseline Model (MB). Measured building periods were
computed using non-parametric system identification through the calculation of
transfer functions between the base-level and roof acceleration histories. Although
not an exact match in all cases, Table A-1 shows that modeled periods agree
reasonably well with the measured periods in the three events studied.
Table A-1 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Periods for the Sherman Oaks Building
Identified Period Identified Period MB Period MB Period
Earthquake Mode 1 (sec) Mode 2 (sec) Mode 1 (sec) Mode 2 (sec)
Long Trans Long Trans Long Trans Long Trans
1994 Northridge 2.92 3.28 0.84 0.94 2.67 2.72 0.84 0.94
1992 Landers 2.56 2.72 0.73 0.80 2.14 2.68 0.74 0.80
1987 Whittier 2.33 2.29 0.82 0.83 2.33 2.29 0.82 0.83
The third stage of calibration targeted Rayleigh damping. Adjustments to the level of
damping were used to match the amplitude of displacements in the superstructure.
The OpenSees model used full Rayleigh damping with two matching frequencies,
taken as the first- and second-mode vibration frequencies. A target level of 4.5% of
critical damping was found to provide reasonable results.
Soil spring capacities were compared to demands computed for the 1994 Northridge
using the calibrated Model MB to investigate the potential for failure of the
foundation during earthquake shaking. Limiting spring capacities for the Sherman
Oaks building (presented in Chapter 7) exceeded spring force demands by a factor of
three or more. This margin of safety indicates that foundation failure is unlikely, and
limiting spring capacities were not needed in the present simulations.
Displacement histories obtained from the calibrated Model MB are compared to

recordings from the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Figure A-3. The match in both
horizontal directions at the foundation and ground floor levels is excellent. Over the
height of the building, the quality of the match is generally better in the longitudinal
(EW) direction than in the transverse (NS) direction. Base rocking results in the
bottom frames show that rocking does not significantly contribute to expected roof
displacements. Because there was only one recording instrument at the ground level,
there are no base rocking data available for comparison to modeled results.

Model MB in the 1994 Northridge earthquake: roof level (a) and (b);
(h); and roof displacement due to base rocking (i) and (j).

Profiles of peak floor displacements and peak floor accelerations obtained from the
calibrated Model MB are compared to recordings from the 1994 Northridge
earthquake in Figure A-4. The fit for displacements is better than for accelerations.
Peak accelerations are surprisingly high at ground level and are slightly larger than
expected over the height of the structure. In general, the quality of the fit is
acceptable, and meets the intent of the calibration criteria.

accelerations for Model MB in the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
The calibrated Model MB was then used to predict the response of the building for
the 1992 Landers and 1987 Whittier earthquakes to assess the stability of the
calibration. Results for displacement histories and peak displacements are shown in
Figure A-5 through Figure A-8. The quality of the match for Whittier is better than
for Northridge, likely due to a lack of nonlinearity in the response. In the case of
Landers, the predicted response is consistently weaker than the recorded response.

Model MB in the 1992 Landers earthquake: roof level (a) and (b); 8th
floor (c) and (d); ground level (e) and (f); foundation level (g) and (h);
and roof displacement due to base rocking (i) and (j).

1992 Landers Earthquake

accelerations for Model MB in the 1992 Landers earthquake.

1987 Whittier Earthquake

Model MB in the 1987 Whittier earthquake: roof level (a) and (b); 8th
floor (c) and (d); ground level (e) and (f); foundation level (g) and (h);
and roof displacement due to base rocking (i) and (j).

1987 Whittier Earthquake

accelerations for Model MB in the 1987 Whittier earthquake.

Appendix B
Sherman Oaks Building Stick Model
Development
calibration for the Sherman Oaks building stick model variations used in parametric
studies presented in Chapter 7. This appendix also includes detailed results
comparing key response quantities from each model variant.
B.1 Stick Model Development
Stick models were used to condense, or simplify, the seismic-force-resisting system

in the superstructure for parametric studies on structural system properties. The key
parameter varied between the models was structural stiffness. The moment frame
system of the Sherman Oaks building was first idealized as a stick model and
calibrated to the results of the full-building Baseline Model (MB). Once comparable
results were achieved for the moment frame stick model, the stiffness was scaled to
different factors representing the stiffness of a series of core shear wall and perimeter
shear wall variations.
B.1.1 Moment Frame Stick Model Development
The Sherman Oaks building moment frame is a 13-story structure above grade, with
a total of seven bays in the east-west (E-W) direction (X-direction) and a total of two
bays in the north-south (N-S) direction (Y-direction). The overall configuration of
the full-building Baseline Model (MB) is shown in Figures B-1 through B-3. These
figures also show the location of the master nodes used in the stick model. The stick
model configuration is shown in Figure B-4.
In the stick model, the mass of each floor, the effective lateral, axial, and rotational
stiffness, and the effective yield strength, are all lumped at the master node for each
level. Geometric and material definitions from the full-building OpenSees model
code were extracted and the rotational and axial stiffness at each floor level were
calculated. A static pushover analysis of the full-building Model MB was used to
determine the lateral stiffness and yield strength at each level.
First, a series of static pushover analyses were performed involving the application of
a single point load at the master node of the floor under consideration, while
constraining all other master nodes of the structure. The pushover analysis was
displacement-controlled, and the recorded force-displacement data at the master node
GCR 12-917-21 B: Sherman Oaks Building Stick Model Development B-1

Figure B-1 Plan view of the full-building model of the Sherman Oaks building.
Figure B-2 Longitudinal elevation (X-direction) of the full-building model of the Sherman
Oaks building.
B-2 B: Sherman Oaks Building Stick Model Development GCR 12-917-21

Figure B-3 Transverse elevation (Y-direction) of the full-building model of the
Sherman Oaks building.
under consideration was used to determine the effective lateral stiffness at each floor
level. Adjustments to the effective lateral stiffness were made as needed to account
for the stiffness contribution of adjacent floors. Once all contributions to stiffness
had been accounted for, force-displacement curves were created. These force-
displacement curves were then used to create idealized force-displacement curves per
ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE, 2007). An example force-displacement curve is shown in
Figure B-5.
This methodology, however, resulted in overall stiffness and yield strength values for
the stick model that exceeded the full-building Model MB values. Another pushover
analyses was performed involving the application of a single point load at the master
node of the roof, pushed to a defined displacement of 20 cm (8 in). This

Figure B-4 Elevation the idealized stick model of the Sherman Oaks building.
Floor 11 Pushover - X Direction

7000
Structure
Stick
6000
5000
Force (kips)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (in)
Figure B-5 Idealized force-displacement curve for the Sherman Oaks building.

displacement level provided adequate story drift over the height of the structure,
without yielding of the structural elements. The force-displacement data recorded at
the master nodes of all levels was then used to calculate the story drifts at each floor
level for a given force. This method produced elastic stiffness values consistent with
the full-building Model MB. Because nonlinear behavior was not observed in the
full-building model for pushover displacements in the range of 20 cm to 50 cm (8 in
to 20 in), the stick model was idealized as an elastic element.
A basement structure node connectivity scheme was developed to properly associate

the idealized stick element with the ground level diaphragm. Node definitions and
connectivity at Floor 1 and below are shown in Figure B-6. All of the nodes in a
given floor level exist at the same location. The nodes labeled 301010, 201010, and
101010 are nodes that define the diaphragms of the substructure. The actual
basement walls occur outside of the lateral frame lines. Fixed support nodes provide
connectivity of the soil-to-wall spring that define interaction between the soil and the
basement wall. Multi-support constraint nodes provide nodal definitions that
simulate the stiffness of the basement walls, both in-plane and out-of-plane, and
account for the offset of the basement wall to the frame line. Rigid body constraints
simulate the vertical stiffness of the basement wall.
Figure B-6 Shear wall and basement level node definitions, constraints, and
connectivity for the Sherman Oaks stick model.

Using these nodal definitions, the base connectivity of the stick element at Floor 1
was defined using rigid elements linking the base of the stick to each of the
unconstrained nodes defining the diaphragm at Floor 1. This produced rigid body
constraints at the ground level that distributed the stick element demands to the walls
of the subterranean structure.
B.1.2 Moment Frame Stick Model Calibration
A limited calibration process was undertaken, with a focus on achieving closer

convergence between floor displacements and peak floor accelerations in the stick
model and full-building model. It was recognized, however, that the process of
idealizing a complex superstructure into a simplified stick representation is an
approximation.
The first stage of calibration targeted the hysteretic behavior observed at each floor
during the response histories. Hysteresis curves were used to compare the predefined
lateral stiffness of the stick model to the full-building Model MB. Softening of the
lateral stiffness of the stick model was needed in both lateral directions at all floor
levels. Plots of absolute displacement and peak acceleration response showed greater
convergence after this calibration.
The second stage of calibration targeted the mild bilinear behavior observed in story
levels above the first story. This stage consisted of defining the yield force at each
level where bilinear behavior occurred in an attempt to match maximum floor
displacements and peak floor accelerations. Each iteration caused divergence of
results with no clear trend toward better calibration, so further adjustment of this
parameter was abandoned.
Final Stick Model Properties. The final stick model was created using
twoNodeLink element objects. This allowed the stick elements spanning from floor
to floor to be modeled as axial, shear, and rotational springs. Final element
properties for the moment frame stick model are given in Tables B-1 through B-3.
The axial and rotational spring stiffness values in Table B-1 are based on length
(story height), area (total column area per story level), and elastic modulus
information taken directly from the full-building Model MB. Rotational stiffness
about global X- and Y-directions were determined by solving a system of linear
equations for a unit rotation. The lateral force-deformation properties in Table B-2
are based on lateral pushover analyses described above. Masses (weights) used in the
stick model are provided in Table B-3.
Each element property was defined using uniaxial stress-strain (force-deformation)

relationships. Axial and rotational element properties were constructed with an
elastic material object. Properties in both lateral directions were constructed with
uniaxial bilinear material objects with kinematic hardening.

Table B-1 Axial and Rotational Properties of the Moment Frame Stick Model
Property Story 1 Story 2 to Story 13
Length 276 in 141 in
Area 25056 in2 24480 in2
Elastic Modulus 4287 ksi 3713 ksi
Rotational Stiffness about Global x-axis 4508x107 kip-in / rad 7359x107 kip-in / rad
(E-W)
Rotational Stiffness about Global y-axis 2243x108 kip-in / rad 3608x108 kip-in / rad
(N-S)
Torsional Stiffness about Global z-axis Fixed Fixed
Table B-2 Lateral Force-Deformation Properties of the Moment Frame Stick Model
Story Yield Strength (kips) Initial Stiffness (kips/in) Strain-Hardening Ratio
E-W N-S E-W N-S E-W N-S
1 5500 6500 2566.8 2521.9 0.0371 0.0142
2 12000 13050 5342.1 4415.0 -0.0541 -0.0176
3 10171 11605 4893.8 3755.8 -0.0348 -0.0478
4 9600 10200 4724.2 3521.5 -0.0318 0.0000
5 8000 8214 4584.9 3429.5 -0.0643 -0.0234
6 6700 7300 4452.4 3389.5 -0.0460 -0.0255
7 5286 6000 4375.8 3351.1 -0.0345 -0.0312
8 5000 5733 4261.2 3293.0 -0.0210 -0.0370
9 4343 5086 4169.9 3242.0 0.0183 -0.0225
10 3771 4571 4141.1 3205.5 0.0040 -0.0090
11 3000 3743 4142.6 3215.3 0.0245 0.0339
12 3000 3600 4235.6 3346.7 0.0263 0.0115
13 5500 5000 4920.4 3864.7 0.0820 0.2642
Table B-4 compares the first-, second-, and third-mode periods of the moment frame
(MF) stick model and the full-building Model MB. Development and calibration of
the stick model was performed using a relatively early version of the Sherman Oaks
OpenSees Model MB, which changed over time as model components and ground
motion inputs were refined. For this reason, Model MB results presented in this
appendix are not an exact match to those presented in Section 7.2.

Table B-3 Masses in the Moment Frame Stick Model
Level Node Weight (kips)
Floor -1 Distributed 3824
Floor 0 Distributed 3824
Floor 1 Distributed 3010
Floor 2 4000000 2522
Floor 3 5000000 2522
Floor 4 6000000 2522
Floor 5 7000000 2522
Floor 6 8000000 2522
Floor 7 9000000 2522
Floor 8 10000000 2522
Floor 9 11000000 2522
Floor 10 12000000 2522
Floor 11 13000000 2522
Floor 12 14000000 2522
Floor 13 15000000 2522
Roof 16000000 3314
Model and the Full-Building Model MB
Identified Period Identified Period Identified Period
Mode 1 (sec) Mode 2 (sec) Mode 3 (sec)
Translational Torsional Translational
Model (Global Y-axis) (about Global Z-axis) (Global X-axis)
MB-MF-Full 2.45 2.31 2.21
MB-MF-Stick 2.87 N.A. 2.62
Figure B-7 compares the roof displacement response history for the moment frame
stick model to the center of the full-building Model MB in the X-direction and the
Y-direction. Responses in the Y-direction are more in phase than in the X-direction.
Displacement amplitudes match fairly well. In some cases, larger amplitudes are
observed in the stick model, but in other cases, larger amplitudes are observed in the
full-building model. Similar results were obtained for nodes located at the mid-
height of the building.

Northridge Record, Channel 1
30
MB-MF-Stick
20 MB-MF-Full
Lateral Displacement (cm)
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
Northridge Record, Channel 2

30
MB-MF-Stick
20 MB-MF-Full
Lateral Displacement (cm)
10
-10
-20
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
Figure B-7 Comparison of roof displacement histories for the moment frame
stick model and the full-building Model MB.
Figures B-8 through B-11 compare response envelopes for maximum displacement,
story drift, story shear, and peak floor acceleration for each direction. Results for the
moment frame stick model are typically within about 10% of those for the full-
building Model MB. Maxima in the positive and negative directions are reported. In
some cases, results for the moment frame stick model are larger in one direction, but
smaller in the perpendicular direction. It was found that calibration attempts often
improved results in one direction at the expense of the other direction.
Based on the following comparisons, the calibration process for the moment frame
stick model was judged to be sufficient for the purposes of the parametric study.

Northridge, X-Direction
14
12
10
Floor Number
8
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Max. Displacement [cm]
Northridge, Y-Direction
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

frame stick Model MB and the full-building Model MB.

Northridge, Interstory Drifts, X-Direction
14
MB-MF-Stick
12
MB-MF-Full
10
Story Number
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Max. Interstory Drifts [cm/cm]
Northridge, Interstory Drifts, Y-Direction

14
12
10
Story Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Figure B-9 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes for the moment frame
stick Model MB and the full-building Model MB.

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
10
Floor Number
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Figure B-10 Comparison of maximum story shear envelopes for the moment
As mentioned earlier, development and calibration of the stick model was performed
using a relatively early version of the Sherman Oaks OpenSees Model MB, which
changed over time. In Figure B-10, a spike in story shear force can be observed in
the basement level for the stick model. This is because early versions of the full-
building Model MB included an artificial phase shift in the ground motions used for
multi-support excitation, which caused a similar spike in shear demand. This phase
shift was removed in subsequent versions of the full-building Model MB, and the
spike no longer appears in the results for the final full-building model depicted in the
figure.

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Peak Floor Accel. [g]
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

B.2 Additional Moment Frame Stick Model Comparisons to Full-
Building Model Results
Calibrations were applied to Baseline Model (MB) results only. The calibrated
moment frame stick model was imported into models capturing the foundation
modeling configurations associated with Model 1, Model 2, and Model 4a. Table
B-5 compares the first-, second-, and third-mode periods of the moment frame stick
model and the full-building model for each foundation configuration.
Model and the Full-Building Model for each Alternative
Foundation Configuration
1-MF-Full 2.26 2.19 2.09

1-MF-Stick 2.83 N.A. 2.61
2-MF-Full 2.46 2.31 2.22
2-MF-Stick 2.86 N.A. 2.62
4a-MF-Full 2.47 2.32 2.21
4a-MF-Stick 2.87 N.A. 2.63
Periods in each simplified stick model are longer than the periods observed in the
corresponding full-building model. This was attributed to the stick elements being
modeled as linear elements and calibrated with an elastic stiffness that was softer
than the full-building model.
Figures B-12 through B-23 compare response envelopes for maximum displacement,
story drift, story shear, and peak floor acceleration for each alternative foundation
model in each direction. In general, comparisons are similar to trends observed for
Model MB.

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
frame stick Model 1 and the full-building Model 1.

14
12 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
10
Story Number
8
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
14
12
10
Story Number
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
stick Model 1 and the full-building Model 1.

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 1-MF-Stick
1-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

14
12 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
10
Story Number
8
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
14
12
10
Story Number
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
stick Model 2 and the full-building Model 2.

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 2-MF-Stick
2-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
frame stick Model 4a and the full-building Model 4a.

14
4a-MF-Stick
12
4a-MF-Full
10
Story Number
8
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
14
12
10
Story Number
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
stick Model 4a and the full-building Model 4a.

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 4a-MF-Stick
4a-MF-Full
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

B.3 Moment Frame Stick Model Comparisons for Different
Foundation Configurations
Figures B-24 through B-27 overlay response envelopes for maximum displacement,
configuration of the moment frame models in each direction. The following trends
were observed:
 Displacements for Model 1 are typically the largest, followed by Model 2.
Displacements for Model 4a are very similar to Model MB.
 Drifts trends are similar to displacement trends, except that Model MB has larger
drifts than the others models in the basement levels.
 Story shear results for Model 1 are the largest. Story shears for Model 2, Model
4a and Model MB are similar.
 Peak floor acceleration results for all models are similar in the upper floors.
Model 2 produces significantly larger results in the ground story and basement
levels.

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

frame stick Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB.


14
1-MF-Stick
12
2-MF-Stick
10 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
Story Number
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
stick Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB.

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
10 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
Floor Number
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-MF-Stick
2-MF-Stick
0 4a-MF-Stick
MB-MF-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

B.4 Shear Wall Stick Model Development
To investigate the effects of structural stiffness on SSI, moment frame stick model
parameters were scaled to represent the stiffness associated with shear wall systems.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 2010) and ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008) were used as references
for determining appropriate scale factors for stiffness. A shear wall stick model was
created by converting the base shear of the full-building Model MB into a design
base shear for an equivalent shear wall using the ratio of response modification
coefficients (R factors) for the special reinforced concrete moment frame and special
reinforced concrete shear wall systems, respectively. Assuming a bearing wall
system, this ratio is 1.6. Based on an amplified base shear, and material properties
predefined in the full-building Model MB, a required shear wall area was determined.
In the case of the core wall configuration, a geometry using two separate interior core
walls, 16 inches thick, was assumed. The cores were configured to match the size
and dimensions of typical elevator, stair, and restroom core areas in typical buildings.
The stiffness was then determined by summing the flexural and shear deflections of a
slender cantilever wall using the following equation:
Vh3 1.2Vh
  b  b   (B-1)
12 EI Gc A
Where the shear modulus of concrete, Gc, was assumed to be 40% of the elastic
modulus of concrete. Total deflection was primarily controlled by the flexural term,
and the stiffness of the shear wall system was approximately three times the stiffness
of the moment frame system. The stiffness contribution from the gravity system was
also considered. When combined with the stiffness of the shear wall system, a total
stiffness scale factor of 5 was obtained. The core shear wall building model, with a
scale factor of 5, was designated SW. Table B-6 compares the first-, second-, and
third-mode periods of the shear wall stick models for each foundation configuration.
Table B-6 Comparison of Modeled Periods for the Shear Wall Stick Models
for each Alternative Foundation Configuration
1 Stick (SW) 1.32 N.A. 1.17
2 Stick (SW) 1.38 N.A. 1.19
4a Stick (SW) 1.40 N.A. 1.20
MB Stick (SW) 1.40 N.A. 1.20

Additional shear wall systems with scale factors of 25, 50, and 125, representing
perimeter shear wall configurations, were also considered. These models were
designated SW1, SW2, and SW3, respectively.
B.5 Shear Wall Stick Model Comparisons
Figures B-28 through B-43 overlay response envelopes for maximum displacement,
configuration, for each shear wall model, in each direction. The following trends
were observed:
 Differences between the models are much more significant in the stiffer shear
wall systems than the moment frame system, demonstrating that SSI effects have
a larger influence on response in stiffer structural systems.
 Displacements in Model 1 are typically the smallest. Displacements in Model 4a
are very similar to Model MB.
 Drift results are similar to displacement results, except that the Model MB has
larger drifts in the basement levels.
 Story shear results vary between the X-direction and Y-direction for all models.
 Peak floor accelerations in the superstructure are larger in Model 1 and Model 2.
Model 2 produces significantly larger floor accelerations in the ground story and
basement levels.

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Figure B-28 Comparison of maximum displacement envelopes for the SW stick

Models 1, 2, 4a, and MB.

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Figure B-29 Comparison of maximum story drift envelopes for the SW stick

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
10 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
Floor Number
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Figure B-30 Comparison of normalized story shear envelopes for the SW stick

14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW -Stick
2-SW -Stick
0 4a-SW -Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Figure B-31 Comparison of peak floor acceleration envelopes for the SW stick

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
6
4 1-SW 1-Stick
2 2-SW 1-Stick
4a-SW 1-Stick
0
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
14
12 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
10
4a-SW 1-Stick
Floor Number
8 MB-SW 1-Stick
6
4
2
0
-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 1-Stick
2-SW 1-Stick
0 4a-SW 1-Stick
MB-SW 1-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-SW 2-Stick
2-SW 2-Stick
0 4a-SW 2-Stick
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 2-Stick
2-SW 2-Stick
0 4a-SW 2-Stick
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW 2-Stick
2-SW 2-Stick
0 4a-SW 2-Stick
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW 2-Stick
2-SW 2-Stick
0 4a-SW 2-Stick
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
1-SW 2-Stick
12
2-SW 2-Stick
10 4a-SW 2-Stick
Floor Number
8 MB-SW 2-Stick
6
4
2
0
-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
14
1-SW 2-Stick
12 2-SW 2-Stick
10 4a-SW 2-Stick
Floor Number
MB-SW 2-Stick
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 2-Stick
2-SW 2-Stick
0 4a-SW 2-Stick
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 2-Stick
2-SW 2-Stick
0 4a-SW 2-Stick
MB-SW 2-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
2 1-SW 3-Stick
2-SW 3-Stick
0 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 3-Stick
2-SW 3-Stick
0 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW 3-Stick
2-SW 3-Stick
0 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Story Number
2 1-SW 3-Stick
2-SW 3-Stick
0 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
6
4 1-SW 3-Stick
2 2-SW 3-Stick
4a-SW 3-Stick
0
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
14
1-SW 3-Stick
12 2-SW 3-Stick
10 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
Floor Number
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 3-Stick
2-SW 3-Stick
0 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Northridge,X-Direction
14
12
10
Floor Number
2 1-SW 3-Stick
2-SW 3-Stick
0 4a-SW 3-Stick
MB-SW 3-Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

B.6 Moment Frame Stick Model and Shear Wall Stick Model
Comparisons
Figures B-44 through B-47 show comparisons between moment frame stick Model
MB and shear wall stick Model MB results for maximum displacement, story drift,
story shear, and peak floor acceleration in each direction. Results clearly indicate a
significant difference in building response between stiffer and more flexible
structural systems.
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

frame stick Model MB and the shear wall stick Model MB.

14
MB-MF-Stick
12
MB-SW -Stick
10
Story Number
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

14
12
10
Story Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
stick Model MB and the shear wall stick Model MB.

14
12
10
Floor Number
8
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
14
12 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
10
Floor Number
-2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
14
12
10
Floor Number
0 MB-MF-Stick
MB-SW -Stick
-2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Appendix C
Walnut Creek Building Model
Development
validation for the Walnut Creek building example application presented in Chapter 7.
C.1 Walnut Creek Building Model Development
Response history analysis of a three-dimensional model of the soil-foundation-

structure system of the Walnut Creek building was performed using OpenSees, Open
System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (McKenna, 1997; OpenSees, 2011).
Construction drawings of the building were made available for inspection through the
auspices of CSMIP. The structural system and foundation configuration are
Renderings of the Walnut Creek building configuration are provided in Figure C-1.
The renderings include cut-away views showing details of the core wall and
perimeter frame configurations, as well as the interior layout of a typical floor level.
Figure C-2 provides plan views of the Walnut Creek building shear wall core at the
foundation, first floor, and typical floor levels.
The building model is composed of the core walls and the perimeter frame. The
framing elements were modeled with force-based beam-column elements using fiber
sections (nonlinearBeamColumn elements in OpenSees). Two methods of modeling
the core wall were considered: (1) use of four-node quadrilateral elements (Quad or
Shell elements in OpenSees); and (2) use of horizontal and vertical boundary frame
elements in combination with diagonal strut elements.
The core walls are 30.5 cm (12 in) thick. To account for the cracked section
properties of the concrete walls, a multiplier on the theoretical uncracked stiffness
must be applied. This multiplier should be dependent on the level of in-situ cracking
of the shear wall and on the intensity of ground shaking, which would dictate the
level of cracking that the wall will experience during an earthquake. A definitive
ratio of cracked to uncracked stiffness in shear walls is not available in the literature.
In the case of flexural stiffness, ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE, 2007) suggests a multiplier
of 0.8 for nominally uncracked walls, and a multiplier of 0.5 for cracked walls.
GCR 12-917-21 C: Walnut Creek Building Model Development C-1

Figure C-1 Renderings of the Walnut Creek building, including cut-away views showing: (a) the
exterior facade; (b) structural framing; (c) core wall elevations; (d) core wall layout;
(e) details of the precast cladding system; and (f) interior layout of a typical floor level.
C-2 C: Walnut Creek Building Model Development GCR 12-917-21

Figure C-2 Plan views of the Walnut Creek building shear wall core: (a)
foundation level; (b) first floor; and (c) typical floor level.

In the case of shear stiffness, ASCE/SEI 41-06 suggests that the full (unreduced)
value of Gc be used for both cracked and uncracked walls. The PEER/ATC-72-1
report (ATC, 2010) states that the cracked shear stiffness should be “substantially
lower” than the uncracked shear stiffness, but there are limited test data available for
use in quantifying this ratio. Considering that the level of shaking during the Loma
Prieta earthquake was modest at the Walnut Creek site, a factor of 0.3 was used for
the approximate ratio between cracked and uncracked concrete shear stiffness.
When using plane-stress Quad elements, the stiffness in the plane of each wall
element is based on the input values of wall dimensions, material behavior, and
Poisson’s ratio,  (taken as 0.25). The material chosen to represent the concrete was
an elastic isotropic material (nDMaterial type called ElasticIsotropic in OpenSees).
The out-of-plane stiffness of each wall element is not represented in this type of
model. In the current version of OpenSees, Quad elements with an elastic isotropic
material can only capture the elastic behavior of the wall elements. Also, the
implementation of quadrilateral elements into a three-dimensional model can be
complicated because of the difference in the number of degrees of freedom at the
nodes.
Because of the above limitations, a combination of boundary frame elements and

diagonal struts was also considered for modeling the core walls. This type of model
permits modeling of inelastic behavior and out-of-plane behavior. In this type of
model, the boundary elements are intended to represent the flexural characteristics of
the wall, and diagonal compression-only truss elements are used to represent
diagonal compression struts in the concrete, which carry a significant portion of the
shear in the concrete walls. The beam and column elements were assigned high
elastic axial stiffness. The beams were also given high flexural stiffness, but the
columns were assigned finite stiffness based on a square section with dimensions
equal to the wall thickness and an elastic modulus reduced to 30% of the gross value.
The dimensions of the diagonal truss elements were also set equal to the wall
thickness, and the elastic modulus was reduced to 30% of the gross value.
Reductions in section stiffness were estimated to account for cracking as well as the
reduced efficiency of the diagonal compression strut. Stiffness reductions were
validated through comparisons between the modeled response and the measured
response of the building to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake input motions.
Frame elements were composed of nonlinear beam-column elements with fiber

sections representing inelastic behavior of both core and cover concrete materials
(Concrete02 in OpenSees) and reinforcing steel materials (Steel02 in OpenSees).
Shear and torsional flexibilities can be modeled as linear-elastic, and combined
together into a single component model using the SectionAggregator approach in
OpenSees. For expediency, however, the current model did not consider these modes
of deformation. An expected yield strength of 462 MPa (67 ksi) was used for the

grade 60 steel (Melchers, 1999), with an initial stiffness of 20,000 GPa (29,000 ksi),
and a post-yield hardening stiffness of 2% of the initial stiffness. A nominal concrete
strength of 35 MPa (5.0 ksi) was modeled, and the expected strength was taken as 1.5
times the nominal strength (52 MPa, 7.5 ksi), in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41-06.
The three-dimensional OpenSees model is depicted in Figure C-3. To expedite the

analyses and post-processing of results, the model was simplified to a two-
dimensional model, also shown in Figure C-3. The two-dimensional model includes
the framing elevations spanning the E-W direction, which was generated by
collapsing the coordinates of the three-dimensional model into two dimensions, and
constraining overlapping nodes to have the same horizontal displacement. The
stiffness and damping properties of the soil are modeled using vertical and horizontal
springs and dashpots, as described in Chapter 7. The soil springs are linear-elastic,
and the dashpots are linear in all model versions. Foundation spring and dashpot
locations are shown in Figure C-4. At the base of the mat, a grid of rigid beams was
created to model the larger footprint of the mat foundation (since it is larger than the
core wall in plan).
The calculated building mass included the mass of all structural elements (beams,
columns, and slabs); 0.5 kPa (10 psf) for partitions; 0.6 kPa (12 psf) for mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing components; and 25% of the design live load taken as 0.6
kPa (12 psf) for a design live load of 2.5 kPa (50 psf). The base of the core wall
extends 4.3 m (14 feet) below the ground level, which includes a 3 m (10 feet)
extension of the core wall, 1.2 m (4 feet) of mat foundation, and sand backfill. The
mass of the core wall (including the sand) is also included in the calculated building
mass. In the model, the mass of the slab and framing elements is assigned to the
nodes, and the mass of each shear wall is distributed to the lower boundary beam.
Damping was modeled as 5% of critical Rayleigh damping, anchored to the first and
third mode periods of the building. The damping was uniformly distributed to all
structural elements, but degrees-of-freedom associated with foundation springs were
excluded. This was necessary to avoid double counting of foundation damping
because the soil-foundation model included dashpots at these degrees-of-freedom.
A preliminary evaluation of the relative accuracy of two-dimensional and three-

dimensional models was performed. A comparison between modeled and recorded
roof displacement histories is shown in Figure C-5. The data indicate that a
significant improvement in accuracy is obtained using the three-dimensional
representation of the numerical model. Although the three-dimensional model was
more accurate in representing the amplitude of the recorded displacements, the two-
dimensional model was a good match to the phasing, and was judged to be a
reasonable approximation of the physical structure for the purposes of this study.

(a) Three-dimensional model
(b) Simplified two-dimensional model

Figure C-3 Illustrations of the Walnut Creek building OpenSees model:
(a) three-dimensional model; and (b) simplified two-dimensional
model.

Figure C-4 Horizontal and vertical spring and dashpot locations for the Walnut
Creek building model.
Figure C-5 Comparison of relative roof displacement histories from recorded

data, two-dimensional (2D) model results, and three-dimensional
(3D) model results for the Walnut Creek building.
C.2 Model Validation
Because of limitations in available site-characterization data, it was decided to pursue

model validation, with a focus on matching overall stiffness and deformation
characteristics, rather than full model calibration. As a result, only the effective
stiffness of the wall elements (columns and struts) was adjusted. In addition, only the
response in the E-W direction was evaluated.
Recorded motions from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake were used to validate the
numerical model. The first step in the validation was a system identification to

compare the fundamental period of the system. The 5%-damped elastic response
spectra were calculated for the ground-floor and roof level recorded accelerations, as
shown in Figure C-6.
Figure C-6 5%-damped elastic response spectra of recorded motions for the
Walnut Creek building in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
The first two periods identified for the E-W direction were 0.81sec and 0.18sec,
respectively. The effective stiffness of the wall columns and diagonal struts were
then modified so that the numerical model gave an accurate representation of the first
two periods as well as the relative displacement history between the ground floor and
the roof. An effective stiffness equal to 30% of the gross section properties resulted
in the first two modeled periods equal to 0.83sec and 0.23sec, respectively.
Comparisons of modeled versus recorded acceleration and relative displacement

histories for the Walnut Creek building in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake are
shown in Figure C-7. The plots indicate that the numerical model is a reasonable
representation of the dynamic response of the physical structure.

Figure C-7 Comparison of modeled versus recorded acceleration and relative displacement
histories for the Walnut Creek building in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: roof level
(a) and (b); 8th floor (c) and (d); 3rd floor (e) and (f); and ground floor (g) and (h).
Comparisons of the modeled versus recorded maximum relative displacements and

peak accelerations are shown in Figure C-8. Maximum relative displacements are
somewhat over-predicted relative to observed maxima. The maximum story drift
profile of the model is shown in Figure C-9.
Because two vertical instruments were present at the ground floor level, it is possible
to compute base rocking (i.e., the difference between the two vertical recordings
divided by the horizontal distance between them). As shown in Figure C-10,
however, low frequency noise causes base rocking contributions evaluated in this
manner to have unrealistic features. Accordingly, the vertical records were filtered
using high-pass Butterworth filters with a corner frequency of 0.4 Hz.

Figure C-8 Comparison of modeled versus recorded maximum relative
displacements and peak accelerations for the Walnut Creek building
in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
Figure C-9 Maximum story drift profile for the Walnut Creek building model
subjected to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
A corner frequency of 0.4 Hz was selected through examination of displacement

histories with different corner frequencies shown in Figure C-10, following the
recommendations of Bommer and Boore (2005), which results in the minimum filter
corner that removes the low frequency noise features in the rocking displacement
history. The resulting comparison between modeled and recorded roof displacement
due to base rotation of the Walnut Creek building is presented in Chapter 7.

Figure C-10 High-pass filtering of vertical motions at base level showing the effects of corner frequency on displacement and rocking
histories.

Symbols
A footing area, m2 (ft2)

Ac footing-soil contact area required to support vertical and shear loads, m2 (ft2)
a0 dimensionless frequency for footings
a0k dimensionless frequency related to base contact area
a 0p dimensionless frequency for piles
B foundation half-width (small plan dimension), m (ft)
BeA half-dimension of an equivalent square footing matching the area of the
actual footing, m (ft)
BeI half-dimension of an equivalent square footing matching the moment of
inertia of the actual footing, m (ft)
c′ soil shear strength, kN/m2 (kips/ft2)
cj dashpot coefficient for translation along the j-axis, kN-sec/m (kipf-sec/ft)
cjj dashpot coefficient for rotation about the j-axis, kN-m/rad (kipf-ft/rad)
c jp dashpot coefficient for single pile, kN-m/rad (kipf-ft/rad)
c zi dashpot intensity, kN-sec/m3 (kipf-sec/ft3)
Cr OpenSees parameter for BNWF models
Cs seismic coefficient
C s seismic coefficient at an elongated period T
d pile diameter, m (ft)
D embedment depth, m (ft)
DL internal node spacing, m (ft)
Dr relative density
dw height of effective side wall contact of embedded foundation, m (ft)
Ef foundation Young’s modulus, MPa (ksi)
Es Young’s modulus of the soil, MPa (ksi)
Ep Young’s modulus of a pile, MPa (ksi)
F force, kN (kips)
GCR 12-917-21 Symbols D-1

fE fundamental frequency (Hz)
fL limiting frequency (Hz)
FSv vertical factor of safety
G soil shear modulus, kPa (ksi)
G0 maximum soil shear modulus (at small strains), kPa (ksi)
Ga soil shear modulus at atmospheric pressure, kPa (ksi)
h height of the center of mass for the first-mode shape, m (ft)
Hu kinematic transfer function
area moment of inertia of soil-foundation contact, m4 (ft4); i denotes the axis

about which the surface is taken
j index denoting modes of translation displacement or rotation
Jt polar moment of inertia of soil-foundation contact surface, m4 (ft4)
k spring stiffness, translation, kN/m (kips/ft), and rotation, kN-m/rad
(kip-ft/rad)
kj spring stiffness, translation, along the j-axis, kN/m (kips/ft)
Kj foundation static stiffness for mode j, translation, kN/m (kips/ft), and
rotation, kN-m/rad (kip-ft/rad)
kj complex-valued impedance function for mode j, translation, N/m (lbf/ft), and
rotation, N-m/rad (lbf-ft/rad)
kjj spring stiffness, rotation, about the j-axis, kN-m/rad (kip-ft/rad)
k Gj efficiency factor for a group of piles
k jp spring stiffness for a single pile, kN/m (kips/ft)
K jp pile static stiffness for mode j, kN/m (kips/ft)
k zi stiffness intensity (coefficient of subgrade reaction), kN/m3 (kips/ft3)
L foundation half-length (large plan dimension), m (ft)
La active pile length (typically in lateral mode, < Lp), m (ft)
le spring spacing, m (ft)
Lend end region length of foundation with increase stiffness, m (ft)
Lp pile length, m (ft)
m mass, Mg (lbm, kipm)
M first mode participating mass, Mg (lbm, kipm)
D-2 Symbols GCR 12-917-21

n, ns, nx, nyy exponents related with foundation damping
p-x horizontal passive load-displacement behavior against side of footing
q spring force, kN (kips)
q0 upper limit of the linear elastic region, kPa (ksi)
qult ultimate load, kPa (ksi)
q-z vertical load-displacement curve
Q vertical load on footing, kN (kips)
QULT ultimate vertical load, kN (kips)
Rc dashpot intensities scalar
Re end length ratio
Rk spring stiffness intensities scalar
Rv rebound ratio
r, rf foundation radius, m (ft)
s spring deflection, m (ft)
s0 displacement at load q0, m (ft)
s50 displacement at which 50% of the ultimate load is mobilized, m (ft)
S spring spacing, m (ft)
Sa fixed-base spectral acceleration, m/s2, (ft/s2), g
Sa spectral acceleration for a flexible-base structure, m/sec2, (ft/sec2), g
S ae equivalent spectral acceleration, m/sec2 (ft/sec2), g
Sa-FIM fixed-base spectral acceleration with FIM effects, m/s2, (ft/s2), g
Sd spectral displacement, m (ft)
S de equivalent spectral displacement, m (ft)
T undamped natural vibration period, sec
T flexible-base period, sec
tf foundation thickness, m (ft)
Tp predominant period of ground motion, sec
Tx, Tyy fictitious vibration periods, calculated as if the only source of the vibration
was translation or rotation, sec
T T period lengthening ratio due to soil-structure interaction

t-x horizontal shear-sliding curve at the base of a footing
uf horizontal deflection amount in a SDOF structure due to base shear force F,
cm (in)
uFIM foundation input motion, acceleration, m/sec2; velocity, m/sec; or
displacement, m
ug free-field ground motion, acceleration, m/sec2; velocity, m/sec; or
displacement, m
V base shear force, kN (kips)
Vapp apparent wave propagation velocity, m/sec (ft/sec)
Vs shear wave velocity in a homogeneous isotropic half-space; measured free-
field shear wave velocity, m/sec (ft/sec)
Vs (z) measured free-field shear wave velocity at depth z, m/sec (ft/sec)
Vs, avg average effective profile velocity over depth zp, m/sec (ft/sec)
Vs, F overburden-corrected shear wave velocity below foundation, m/sec (ft/sec)
VULT ultimate vertical load, kN (kips)
W effective weight of structure, kN (kips)
wpj, wsj, wbj weight factors, for the pile, soil, and pile tip stiffness contributions for
mode j
z depth, m (ft)
zp effective profile depth, m (ft)
zw depth to centroid of effective sidewall contact, m (ft)
j dynamic (frequency-dependent) stiffness modifier for surface foundation for
mode j
 jp dynamic (frequency-dependent) stiffness modifier for single pile for mode j
v vertical angle of incident waves
0 flexible-base system damping ratio
f foundation damping ratio
i fixed-base structural damping ratio
j dynamic damping ratio for mode j
 jp pile dynamic damping ratio for mode j
p pile damping ratio
rj radiation damping ratio for mode j

s soil hysteretic damping ratio
 deflection, m (ft)
 total deflection with respect to free-field at the top of a SDOF structure, cm
(in)
max maximum earthquake-induced displacement in a structural member, cm (in)
 max maximum earthquake-induced displacement at the top of a structure, cm (in)
y yield displacement of a structural member, cm (in)
 y yield displacement at the top of a structure, cm (in)
v increment of vertical stress at depth z from the structural weight, kPa (ksi)
j dimensionless modulus of subgrade reaction
j, jj embedment correction factor for rigid footing spring constants for mode j
 rotation deflection amount in a SDOF structure due to base moment (rad)
elastic elastic rotation limit (rad)
a dimensionless parameter accounting for effects of incoherence from wave
passage and stochastic processes, as well as Fourier amplitude variability
 dimensionless parameter for active pile length
L dimensionless pile length parameter
 dimensionless constant exponent for active pile length
s global structural system ductility demand, individual structural member
ductility demand, respectively
 soil Poisson’s ratio
f foundation Poisson’s ratio
p pile mass density, Mg/m3 (lbm/ft3)
s soil mass density, Mg/m3 (lbm/ft3)
m effective confining stress, kPa (ksi)
 v 0 effective stress from the self-weight of the soil, kPa (ksi)
′ angle of internal friction, rad (deg)
j loss angle due to damping, rad (deg)
j dimensionless constant for vibration for mode j
 soil-to-foundation stiffness ratio, representing the flexibility of the
foundation

 dimensionless pile tip stiffness
 undamped natural vibration frequency (rad/sec)

References
Abrahamson, N.A., 1985, Estimation of Seismic Wave Coherency and Rupture

Velocity Using the SMART 1 Strong-Motion Array Recordings, Report No.
UCB/EERC-85/02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Abrahamson, N.A., 1992, Spatial Variation of Earthquake Ground Motion for
Application to Soil-Structure Interaction, Report. No. EPRI TR-100463,
Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Abrahamson, N.A., Schneider, J.F., and Stepp, J.C., 1991, “Empirical spatial
coherency functions for application to soil-structure interaction analyses,”
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-27.
ACI, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-08,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Allotey, N., and Naggar, M.H.E., 2003, “Analytical moment–rotation curves for rigid
foundations based on a Winkler model,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 367-381.
Allotey, N., and Naggar, M.H.E., 2007, “An investigation into the Winkler modeling
of the cyclic response of rigid footings,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Anoyatis, G., and Mylonakis, G., 2012, “Dynamic winkler modulus for axially
loaded piles,” Geotechnique, Vol. 62, pp. 521-536.
Ancheta, T.D., 2010, Engineering Characterization of Spatially Variable Ground
Motions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,
California.
Ancheta, T.D., Stewart, J.P., and Abrahamson, N.A., 2011, “Engineering
characterization of earthquake ground motion coherency and amplitude
variability,” Proceedings, 4th International Symposium on Effects of Surface
Geology on Seismic Motion, IASPEI / IAEE, University of California Santa
Barbara, California.
Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H. II, and Juang, C.H., 2004. “Guide for shear-wave-based
liquefaction potential evaluation,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp. 285-308.
GCR 12-917-21 References E-1

Apsel, R.J., and Luco, J.E., 1987, “Impedance functions for foundations embedded in
a layered medium: an integral equation approach,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 213-231.
Aviles, J., and Perez-Rocha, L.E., 1996, “Evaluation of interaction effects on system
period and the system damping due to foundation embedment and layer
depth,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 11-27.
ASCE, 2000, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and
Commentary, ASCE 4-98, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia.
ASCE, 2005, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in
Nuclear Facilities, ASCE/SEI 43-05, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 2007, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI
7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 2013, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI
41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, (in preparation), Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and
Commentary, ASCE 4, Reston, Virginia.
ATC, 1996, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC-40 Report,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 2010, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of
Tall Buildings, PEER/ATC-72-1 Report, prepared by Applied Technology
Council in cooperation with Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Redwood City, California.
Barghouthi, A.F., 1984, Pile Response to Seismic Waves, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Barkan, D.D., 1962, Dynamics of bases and foundations, McGraw-Hill, New York,
New York.
Bielak, J., 1975, “Dynamic behavior of structures with embedded foundations,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp. 259-274.
Bielak, J., 1976, “Modal analysis for building-soil interaction,” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 102, pp. 771-786.
E-2 References GCR 12-917-21

Blaney, G.W., Kausel, E., and Roesset, J.M., 1975, “Dynamic stiffness of piles,”
Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 1010-1012.
Boore, D.M., and Boomer, J.J., 2005, “Processing of strong-motion accelerograms:
needs, options and consequences,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Borja, W.I., and Wu, W.H., 1994, “Vibration of foundations on incompressible soils
with no elastic region,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120,
No. 9, pp. 1570-1592.
Boulanger, R.W., Curras, C.J., Kutter, B.L., Wilson, D.W., and Abghari, A., 1999,
“Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses,” Journal
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, pp. 750-759.
CESMD, 2011, “CESMD – A Cooperative Effort,” Center for Engineering Strong
Motion Data (CESMD), accessed in 2011, http://www.strongmotioncenter
.org.
Chang, B.J., Thomas, J.M., Raychowdhury, P., Gajan, S., Kutter, B.L., and
Hutchinson, T.C., 2007, Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction: Shallow
Foundations, SSRP 07/24, University of California, San Diego, California.
Chatzigogos, C.T., Pecker, A., and Salencon, J., 2009, “Macroelement modeling of
shallow foundations,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 29,
pp. 765-781.
Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 1999, “Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on
inelastic design spectrum,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 637-656.
Chopra, A., and Yim S.C., 1985, “Simplified earthquake analysis of structures with
foundation uplift,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 4,
pp. 906-930.
Ciampoli, M., and Pinto, P.E., 1995, “Effects of soil-structure interaction on inelastic
seismic response of bridge piers,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 121, No. 5, pp. 806-814.
Clough, R.W., and Penzien, J., 1993, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill, New
York.
Coduto, D.P., 1994, Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices, 2nd Edition,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Cox, W., Reese, L., and Grubbs, B., 1974, “Field testing of laterally loaded piles in
sand,” Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
Paper 2079.

Cremer, C., Pecker, A., and Davenne, L., 2001, “Cyclic macro-element of soil
structure interaction: Material and geometrical nonlinearities,” International
Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 25,
pp. 1257-1284.
Crouse, C.B., 2001, “Commentary on soil-structure interaction in U.S. seismic
provisions,” Proceedings, 2nd UJNR Workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction,
Tsukuba, Japan.
Crouse, C.B., Hushmand, B., Luco, J.E., and Wong, H.L., 1990, “Foundation
impedance functions: Theory versus experiment,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 432-449.
Darendeli, 2001, Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction
and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin, Texas.
Day, S.M., 1978, “Seismic response of embedded foundations,” Preprints of
Conference Proceedings of ASCE Convention and Exposition, Chicago, IL,
Preprint No. 3450, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New
York.
De Barros, F.C.P., and Luco, J.E., 1995, “Identification of foundation impedance
functions and soil properties from vibration tests of the Hualien containment
model,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 14, pp. 229-248.
Dobry, R., and Gazetas, G., 1988, “Simple method for dynamic stiffness and
damping of floating pile groups,” Geotechnique, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 557-574.
Dobry, R., Gazetas, G., and Stokoe, K.H. II, 1986, “Dynamic response of arbitrarily
shaped foundations: Experimental verification,” Journal of Geotechnical
Dobry, R., Vicente, E., O'Rourke, M.J., and Roesset, J.M., 1982, “Horizontal
stiffness and damping of single piles,” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. 108, No. 3, pp. 439-459.
El-Naggar, M.H., and Novak, M., 1994, “Non-linear model for dynamic axial pile
response,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 2,
pp. 308-329.
El-Naggar, M.H., and Novak M., 1995, “Nonlinear analysis for dynamic lateral pile
response,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp. 233-244.
EPRI, 2007, Hard-Rock Coherency Functions Based on the Pinyon Flat Array Data,
ADAMS Accession No. ML071980104, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California.

Erden, S.M., 1974, Influence of Shape and Embedment on Dynamic Foundation
Response, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts.
Fadum, R.E., 1948, “Influence values for estimating stresses in elastic foundations,”
Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 3, pp. 77-84.
Fan, K., Gazetas, G., Kaynia, A., and Kausal, E., 1991, “Kinematic seismic response
of single piles and pile groups,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 117, No. 12, pp. 1860-1879.
FEMA, 1997, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA
273, prepared by the Applied Technology Council and the Building Seismic
Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 356, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers
for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2004a, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions, FEMA 450-1/2003
Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2004b, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, Part 2: Commentary, FEMA 450-2/2003
Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2005, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA
440, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2009, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and
Other Structures, FEMA P-750/2009 Edition, prepared by the Building
Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., and Elson, W.K., 1992, Piling
Engineering, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Flores-Berrones, R., and Whitman, R.V., 1982, “Seismic response of end-bearing
piles,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 108, No. 4,
pp. 554-569.

Fumal, T.E., and Tinsley, J.C., 1985, “Mapping shear wave velocities of near surface
geologic materials, in evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles
region-an earth-science perspective,” USGS Survey Professional Paper 1360,
pp. 101-126.
Gadre, A., and Dobry, R., 1998, “Lateral cyclic loading centrifuge tests on square
embedded footings,” Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Gajan S., 2006, Physical and Numerical Modeling of Nonlinear Cyclic Load-
Deformation Behavior of Shallow Foundations Supporting Rocking Shear
Walls, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis, California.
Gajan, S., Hutchinson, T.C., Kutter, B.L., Raychowdhury, P., Ugalde, J.A., and
Stewart, J.P., 2008, Numerical models for analysis and performance-based
design of shallow foundations subject to seismic loading, Report No. PEER-
2007/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
Gajan, S., and Kutter, B.L., 2008, “Capacity, settlement, and energy dissipation of
shallow footings subjected to rocking,” Journal Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 8, pp. 1129-1141.
Gajan, S., and Kutter, B.L., 2009, “A contact interface model for shallow foundations
subjected to combined cyclic loading,” Journal Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, pp. 407-419.
Gajan, S., Phalen, J.D., and Kutter, B.L., 2003, Soil-Foundation-Structure
Interaction: Shallow Foundations, Report No. UCD/CGMDR-03/01, Center
for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, California.
Gajan, S., Raychowdhury, P., Hutchinson, T.C., Kutter, B.L., and Stewart, J.P., 2010,
“Application and validation of practical tools for nonlinear soil-foundation
interaction analysis,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 111-129.
Gazetas, G., 1991, “Foundation vibrations,” Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd
Edition, Chapter 15, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Chapman and Hall, New York, New
York.
Gazetas, G., 2006, “Seismic design of foundations and soil-structure
interaction,”Proceedings, First European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland.
Gazetas, G., and Dobry, R., 1984a, “Horizontal response of piles in layered soil,”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 110, No. 1,
pp. 20-40.

Gazetas, G., and Dobry, R., 1984b, “Simple radiation damping model for piles and
footings,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 110,
No. 6, pp. 937-956.
Gazetas, G., and Stokoe, K.H. II, 1991, “Free vibration of embedded foundations:
Theory versus experiment,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117,
No. 9, pp. 1382-1401.
Ghosh, B., and Madabhushi, S.P.G., 2007. “Centrifuge modelling of seismic soil
structure interaction effects.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 237,
No. 8, pp. 887-896.
Givens, M.J., 2013, Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction of Instrumented Buildings
and Test Structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles,
California.
Guzina, B.B., and Pak, R.Y.S., 1998, “Vertical vibration of a circular footing on a
linear-wave-velocity half space,” Geotechnique, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 159-168.
Harden, C.W., and Hutchinson, T.C., 2009, “Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation
modeling of shallow, rocking-dominated footings,” Earthquake Spectra,
Vol. 25, pp. 277-300.
Hardin, B.O., and Black, W.L., 1968, “Vibration modulus of normally consolidated
clay,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Vol. 94,
No. 2, pp. 353-369.
Harding, Miller, Lawson, and Associates, 1970, Foundation Investigation Walnut
Creek Office Building for Dillingham Corporation, Walnut Creek,
California, Report 3008,002.04, San Francisco, California.
Haselton, C.B., Leil, A.B., Deierlein, G.G., and Chou, J.H., 2011, “Seismic Collapse
Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: I, Assessment of Ductile Moment
Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, pp. 481-491.
Holtz, R.D., Kovacs, W.D., and Sheahan, T.C., 2010, An Introduction to
Geotechnical Engineering, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Houlsby, G.T., and Cassidy, M.J., 2002, “A plasticity model for the behavior of
footings on sand under combined loading,” Geotechnique, Vol. 52, No. 2,
pp. 117-129.
Iguchi, M., and Luco, J.E., 1982, “Vibration of flexible plate on viscoelastic
medium,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 108, No. 6,
pp. 1103-1120.

Jeremic, B., Jie, G.Z., Preisig, M., Tafazzoli, N., 2009, “Time domain simulation of
soil-foundation-structure interaction in non-uniform soils,” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 5,
pp. 699-718.
Kagawa, T., and Kraft, L.M., 1981, “Lateral pile response during earthquakes,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 107, pp. 1713-1731.
Karatzia X., and Mylonakis, G., 2012, “Horizontal response of piles in layered soil:
Simple analysis,” 2nd International Conference on Performance-Based
Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Taormina, Italy.
Kausel, E., 2010, “Early history of soil-structure interaction,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 822-832.
Kausel E., Whitman A., Murray J., Elsabee F., 1978, “The spring method for
embedded foundations,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 48,
pp. 377-392.
Kaynia, A.M., and Kausel, E., 1982, Dynamic Stiffness and Seismic Response of Pile
Groups, Research Report R82-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kaynia, A.M., and Novak, M., 1992, “Response of pile foundations to Rayleigh
waves and to obliquely incident body waves,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 303-318.
Kim, S., and Stewart, J.P., 2003, “Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong
motion recordings,” Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Kramer, S.L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Kwok, A.O., Stewart, J.P., Hashash, Y.M.A., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., and
Yang, Z., 2007, “Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to
guide implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis
procedures,” Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 133, No. 11, pp. 1385-1398.
LeRoy, Crandall and Associates, 1978, Report of Supplementary Studies Proposed
Retaining Walls Proposed Sherman Oaks Galleria, Ventura and Sepulveda
Boulevards, Los Angeles, California, Report No. ADE-78044, prepared for
Kendall International, provided by MACTEC, Los Angeles, California.

LeRoy, Crandall and Associates, 1982, Completion of Exploration Program
Proposed Office Building and Parking Structure, Ventura and Sepulveda
Boulevards, Los Angeles, California, Report No. ADE-81384, prepared for
McNeill Enterprises, provided by MACTEC, Los Angeles, California.
Lin, A.N., and Jennings, P.C., 1984, “Effect of embedment on foundation-soil
impedances,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 110, No. 7,
pp. 1060-1075.
Liou, G.S., and Huang, P.H., 1994, “Effect of flexibility on impedance functions for
circular foundations,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 120, No. 7,
pp. 1429-1446.
Luco, J.E., Trifunac, M.D., and Wong, H.L., 1988, “Isolation of soil-structure
interaction effects by fullscale forced vibration tests,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Luco, J.E., and Westmann, R.A., 1971, “Dynamic response of circular footings,”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 1381-1395.
Lysmer, J., Ostadan, F., and Chen, C., 1999, Computer Program SASSI2000,
Geotechnical Division, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Mamoon, S.M., and Banerjee, P.K., 1990, “Response of piles and pile groups to
traveling SH waves,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 597-610.
Maravas, A., Mylonakis, G., and Karabalis, D.L., 2007, “Dynamic characteristics of
simple structures on piles and footings,” Proceedings, 4th International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece,
Paper No. 1672.
Marcuson, W.F., and Wahls, H.E., 1972, “Time effects on dynamics shear modulus
of clays,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 98,
No. SM 12, pp. 1359-1373.
Matlock, H., 1970, “Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay,”
Proceedings, 2nd Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 1,
pp. 577-594, Paper No. 1204.
McClelland, B., and Focht, J.A., Jr., 1958, “Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles,”
Transactions, Vol. 123, pp. 1049-1063.
McKenna, F., 1997, Object Oriented Finite Element Programming Frameworks for
Analysis, Algorithms and Parallel Computing, Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley, California.
Melchers, R.E., 1999, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, 2nd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, New York.

Menq, F.-Y., 2003, Dynamic Properties of Sandy and Gravelly Soils, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Michaelides O., Gazetas, G., Bouckovalas, G., and Chrysikou, E., 1998,
“Approximate nonlinear analysis of piles,” Geotechnique, Vol. 48, No. 1,
pp. 33-54.
Mikami, A., Stewart, J.P., Ostadan, F., and Crouse, C.B., 2006, “Representation of
ground motion incoherence for the analysis of kinematic soil-structure
interaction,” Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, April 18-22, San Francisco, California, Paper No. 1071.
Mikami, A., Stewart, J.P., and Kamiyama, M., 2008, “Effects of time series analysis
protocols on transfer functions calculated from earthquake accelerograms,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 9, pp. 695-706.
Mylonakis, G., 1995, Contribution to Static and Seismic Analysis of Piles and Pile-
Supported Bridge Piers, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo,
New York.
Mylonakis, G., 2011, Personal Communication (unpublished study), University of
Patras, Greece.
Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G., 1998, “Settlement and additional internal forces of
grouped piles in layered soil,” Geotechnique, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 55-72.
Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G., 1999, “Lateral vibration and internal forces of
grouped piles in layered soil,” Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G., 2000, “Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial
or detrimental,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 377-401.
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, S., and Gazetas, G., 2006, “Footings under seismic loading:
Analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, pp. 824-853.
Mylonakis, G., and Roumbas, D., 2001, “Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles in
inhomogeneous soil media,” Proceedings, 4th International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, San Diego, California, Paper No. 6.27.
Naeim, F., Tileylioglu, S., Alimoradi, A., and Stewart, J.P., 2008, “Impact of
foundation modeling on the accuracy of response history analysis of a tall
building,” Proceedings, SMIP2008 Seminar on Utilization of Strong Motion
Data, California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Sacramento,
California, pp. 19-55.

Newmark, N.M., 1969, “Torsion of symmetrical buildings,” Proceedings, 4th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
Nie, J., Xu, J., Hofmayer, C., and Ali, S., 2008, “An approach for assessing structural
uplifting using blast motions,” Proceedings, ASME Pressure Vessel and
Piping Division Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Paper No. PVP2008-61278.
Nii, Y., 1987, “Experimental half-space dynamic stiffness,” Journal of Geotechnical
Nikolaou, A., Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G., and Tazoh, T. 2001, “Kinematic pile
bending during earthquakes: analysis and field measurements,”
Geotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 425-440.
NIST, 2012, Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced Seismic Design
Criteria for New Buildings, GCR 12-917-20, prepared by the NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council
and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering,
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Maryland.
Nogami, T., 1983, “Dynamic group effect in axial response of grouped piles,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 228-243.
Nogami, T., Otani, J., Konagai, K., and Chen, H.-L., 1992, “Nonlinear soil-pile
interaction model for dynamic lateral motion,” Journal of Geotechnical
Nova, R., and Montrasio, L., 1991, “Settlements of shallow foundations on sand,”
Novak, M., 1987, “Discussion of dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations:
experimental verification,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113,
No. 11, pp. 1410-1412.
Novak, M., 1991, “Piles under dynamic loads: state of the art,” Proceedings, 2nd
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 233-245.
OpenSees, 2011, Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation: OpenSees,
University of California, Berkeley, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Ostadan F., 2005, “Seismic soil pressure for building walls – an updated approach,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 25, pp. 785-793.
Ostadan, F., Deng, N., and Kennedy, R., 2005, “Soil-structure interaction analysis
including ground motion incoherency effects,” Proceedings, 18th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
(SMiRT 18), Beijing, China.

Ostadan, F., Hadjian, A.H., Tseng, W.S., Tang, Y.K., Tang, H.T., 1991, “Parametric
evaluation of intermediate SSI solutions on final response,” Proceedings, 11th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
(SMiRT 11), Tokyo, Japan, Paper K04/1, pp. 63-68.
Ostadan F., and White, W., 1998, “Lateral seismic soil pressure – an updated
approach,” Proceedings, U.S.-Japan SSI Workshop, U.S. Geological Survey,
Menlo Park, California.
Pais, A., and Kausel, E., 1988, “Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of
rigid foundations,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7,
No. 4, pp. 213-227.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Pecker, A., and Chatzigogos, C.T., 2010, “Non-linear soil-structure interaction:
Impact on the seismic response of structures,” Earthquake Engineering in
Europe, M. Garevski and A. Ansal (editors), Springer, New York,
pp. 79-103.
PEER, 2010, Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings,
Report No. 2010/05, developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center as part of the Tall Buildings Initiative, University of
Pender, M., 1993, “Aseismic pile foundation design analysis,” Bulletin of New
Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 1,
pp. 49-160.
Penzien, J., 1970, “Soil-pile-foundation interaction,” Earthquake Engineering, R.L.
Wiegel (editor), Prentice Hall, New York, New York.
Perez-Rocha, L.E., and Aviles, J., 2003, “The evaluation of interaction effects in
inflexible resistances,” Revista de Ingenieria Sismica, No. 69 (in Spanish).
Powell, G.H., 2006, “Static pushover methods – explanation, comparison and
implementation,” Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, California.
Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R., 1987, “Strength and ductility of concrete bridge
columns under seismic loading,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 84, No. 1,
pp. 61-76.
Randolph, M.F., 1981, “The response of flexible piles to lateral loading,”

Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P., 1978, “Analysis of deformation of vertically
loaded piles,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 104, No. 12,
pp. 1465-1488.
Raney Geotechnical, 1983, Foundation Investigation North Main Centre, North Main
St., and Principle Ave., Walnut Creek, CA, Report 029-005, West
Sacramento, California.
Rathje, E.M., Faraj, F., Russell, S., and Bray, J.D., 2004, “Empirical relationships for
frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions,” Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 119-144.
Raychowdhury, P., 2008, Nonlinear Winkler-Based Shallow Foundation Model for
Performance Assessment of Seismically Loaded Structures, PhD Dissertation,
University of California, San Diego, California.
Raychowdhury, P., and Hutchinson, T.C., 2008, “Nonlinear material models for
Winkler-based shallow foundation response evaluation,” GeoCongress 2008:
Characterization, Monitoring, and Modeling of GeoSystems, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
Raychowdhury, P., and Hutchinson, T.C., 2009, “Performance evaluation of a
nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model using centrifuge test
results,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 5,
pp. 679-698.
Richart, F.E., Jr., and Whitman, E.V., 1967, “Comparison of footing vibration tests
with theory,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 93,
No. 6, pp. 143-168.
Riggs, H.R., and Waas, G., 1985, “Influence of foundation flexibility on soil-
structure interaction,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 597-615.
Roesset, J.M., 1980, “Stiffness and damping coefficients of foundations,”
Proceedings, ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division National
Convention, pp. 1-30.
Rosebrook, K.R., and Kutter, B.L., 2001a, Soil-Foundation Structure Interaction:
Shallow Foundations, UCD/CGMDR-01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling,
University of California, Davis, California.
Rosebrook, K.R., and Kutter, B.L., 2001b, Soil-Foundation structure interaction:

Rosebrook, K.R., and Kutter, B.L., 2001c, Soil-Foundation Structure Interaction:
Salgado, R., 2008, The Engineering of Foundations, McGraw-Hill, New York, New
York.
SCEC, 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special
Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards
in California, Southern California Earthquake Center, June 2002,
http://www.scec.org/resources/catalog/hazardmitigation.html.
Scott, R., 1981, Foundation Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Soubra, A.-H., 1999, “Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity of foundations,”
Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 1,
pp. 59-68.
Sozen, M.A., and Moehle, J.P., 1993, Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Walls
Resisting In-Plane Shear, Electric Power Research Institute, Research
Project 3094-01, Palo Alto, California.
Stewart, J.P., and Fenves, G.L., 1998, “System identification for evaluating soil-
structure interaction effects in buildings from strong motion recordings,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 27, pp. 869-885.
Stewart, J.P., Fenves, G.L., and Seed, R.B., 1999b, “Seismic soil-structure interaction
in buildings II: Empirical findings,” Journal Geotechnical and
Stewart, J.P., Kim, S., Bielak, J., Dobry, R., and Power, M., 2003, “Revisions to soil
structure interaction procedures in NEHRP design provisions,” Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 677-696.
Stewart, J.P., Seed, R.B., and Fenves, G.L., 1999a, “Seismic soil-structure interaction
in buildings I: Analytical aspects,” Journal Geotechnical and
Stewart, J.P., and Stewart, A.F., 1997, Analysis Of Soil-Structure Interaction Effects
On Building Response From Earthquake Strong Motion Recordings At 58
Sites, Report UCB/EERC-97/01, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
Stewart, J.P., and Tileylioglu, S., 2007, “Input ground motions for tall buildings with
subterranean levels,” Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings,
Vol. 16, pp. 543-557.

Stokoe, K.H., and Erden, S.M., 1985, Influence of Base Shape on Dynamic Response
of Surface Foundations, Geotechnical Engineering Report GP85-1,
University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
Syngros, K., 2004, Contributions to the Static and Seismic Analysis of Piles and Pile
Supported Bridge Piers Evaluated through Case Histories, Ph.D.
Dissertation, City University of New York, New York.
Thomas, J.M., Gajan S., and Kutter B.L., 2005, Soil-Foundation-Structure
Interaction: Shallow Foundations, UCD/CGMDR-05/02, Center for
Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, California.
Tileylioglu, S., 2008, Evaluation of Soil-Structure Interaction Effects from Field
Performance Data, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles, California.
Tileylioglu, S., Naeim, F., Alimoradi, A., and Stewart, J.P., 2010, “Impact of
foundation modeling on the accuracy of response analysis for a tall
building,” Proceedings, 9th U.S. National & 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, EERI and Canadian Association for Earthquake
Engineering, Paper No. 1666.
Tileylioglu, S., Stewart, J.P., and Nigbor, R.L., 2011, “Dynamic stiffness and
damping of a shallow foundation from forced vibration of a field test
structure,” Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 137, No. 4, pp. 344-353.
Ugalde, J., 2007, Centrifuge Tests on Bridge Columns on Shallow Square Footings,
Master’s Thesis, University of California, Davis, California.
University of Illinois, 2011, DEEPSOIL V4.0, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, accessed in 2011, http://deepsoil.cee.illinois.edu/.
Veletsos, A.S., and Meek, J.W., 1974, “Dynamic behavior of building-foundation
systems,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3,
pp. 121-138.
Veletsos, A.S., and Nair, V.V., 1975, “Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic
foundations,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 101, pp. 109-129.
Veletsos, A.S., and Prasad, A. M., 1989. “Seismic interaction of structures and soils:
Stochastic approach,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 4,
pp. 935-956.
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Wu, W.H., 1997, “Transfer functions for rigid
rectangular foundations,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 5-17.

Veletsos, A.S., and Wei, Y.T., 1971, “Lateral and rocking vibrations of footings,”
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 97, No. 9,
pp. 1227-1248.
Vrettos, C., 1999, “Vertical and rocking impedances for rigid rectangular foundations
on soils with bounded non-homogeneity,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, pp. 1525-1540.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R., 1991, “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, pp. 89-107.
Watson, G.N., 1995, A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions, Cambridge
University Press, United Kingdom.
Western Engineering, 2011, “DYNA6 Software,” Western Geotechnical Research
Centre, Western University, accessed December 2011, http://www.eng.uwo
.ca/research/grc/dyna6.htm.
Wolf, J.P., 1985, Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Wolf, J.P., and Von Arx, G.A., 1978, “Impedance function of a group of vertical
piles,” Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Pasadena, California, Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1041.
Wong, H.L., 1979, Soil-Structure Interaction: A Linear Continuum Mechanics
Approach (CLASSI Users Manual), Report No. 79-04, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Wong, H.L., and Luco, J.E., 1985, “Dynamic interaction between rigid foundations
in a layered half space,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 149-158.
Wong, H.L., Trifunac, M.D., and Luco, J.E., 1988, “A comparison of soil-structure
interaction calculations with results of full-scale forced vibration test,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, pp. 22-31.
Xu, J., Costantino, C., and Hofmayer, C., 2003, Collaborative Study of NUPEC
Seismic Field Test Data for NPP Structures, Report BNL-NUREG-71355-
2003, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.
Yamada, S., Hyodo, M., Orense, R.P., Dinesh, S.V., and Hyodo, T., 2008, “Strain-
dependent dynamic properties of remolded sand-clay mixtures,” Journal
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 7,
pp. 972-981.

Yu, E., Whang, D.H., Conte, J.P., Stewart, J.P., and Wallace, J.W., 2005, “Forced-
vibration testing of buildings using the linear shaker seismic simulation
(LSSS) testing method,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 34, pp. 737-761.

Project Participants

John (Jack) R. Hayes, Jr. Steven L. McCabe
Engineering Laboratory (MS8604) Engineering Laboratory (MS8604)
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive 100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
www.NEHRP.gov www.NEHRP.gov
John (Jay) L. Harris III

Engineering Laboratory (MS8604)
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
www.NEHRP.gov

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL CONSORTIUM OF UNIVERSITIES FOR
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Redwood City, California 94065 1301 S. 46th Street, Building 420
www.ATCouncil.org Richmond, California 94804
www.CUREE.org
Joint Venture Management Committee

James R. Harris Christopher Rojahn
J.R. Harris & Company Applied Technology Council
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1525 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Denver, Colorado 80203 Redwood City, California 94065
Robert Reitherman Andrew Whittaker

Consortium of Universities for Research in Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environ. Engin.
Earthquake Engineering 230 Ketter Hall
1301 S. 46th Street, Building 420 University at Buffalo
Richmond, California 94804 Buffalo, New York 14260
Joint Venture Program Committee

Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager) Michael Constantinou
Applied Technology Council Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environ. Engin.
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 University at Buffalo
Redwood City, California 94065 132 Ketter Hall
Buffalo, New York 14260
GCR 12-917-21 Project Participants F-1

C.B. Crouse Jack P. Moehle
URS Corporation University of California Berkeley
1501 4th Avenue, Suite 1400 325 Davis Hall – MC 1792
Seattle, Washington 98101 Berkeley, California 94720
William T. Holmes James R. Harris (ex-officio)

Rutherford & Chekene Andrew Whittaker (ex-officio)
55 Second Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, California 94105
Project Manager
David A. Hutchinson
Buehler & Buehler, Structural Engineers
600 Q Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95811
Project Technical Committee

Jonathan P. Stewart (Project Director) Bret Lizundia
University of California, Los Angeles Rutherford & Chekene
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering 55 Second Street, Suite 600
5731 Boelter Hall San Francisco, California 94105
Los Angeles, California 90095
Farzad Naeim
C.B. Crouse John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.
URS Corporation 950 S. Grand Avenue, 4th Floor
1501 4th Avenue, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90015
Seattle, Washington 98101
Farhang Ostadan
Tara C. Hutchinson Bechtel Corporation
University of California, San Diego 50 Beale Street
Department of Structural Engineering San Francisco, California 94105
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, California 92093
Working Group Members

Fortunato Enriquez Silvia Mazzoni
California State University, Chico Degenkolb Engineers
475 East 10th Avenue 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 500
Chico, California 95926 San Francisco, California 94104
Michael J. Givens Erik Okstad

University of California, Los Angeles Rutherford & Chekene
5731 Boelter Hall 55 Second Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90095 San Francisco, California 94105
Curtis B. Haselton Andreas Schellenberg

California State University, Chico Rutherford & Chekene
Department of Civil Engineering 55 Second Street, Suite 600
475 East 10th Avenue San Francisco, California 94105
Chico, California 95926
F-2 Project Participants GCR 12-917-21

Project Review Panel
Craig D. Comartin Gyimah Kasali
CDComartin Inc. Rutherford & Chekene
7683 Andrea Avenue 55 Second Street, Suite 600
Stockton, California 95207 San Francisco, California 94105
Youssef Hashash George Mylonakis

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University of Patras, Greece
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering 26500 Patras, Greece
205 North Mathews Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801 Graham Powell
Graham H. Powell, Inc.
Annie M. Kammerer 14710 Wolfgang Road
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Truckee, California 96161
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Washington, D.C. 20555
Workshop Participants
Peter Behnam Robert D. Hanson
KPFF Consulting Engineers 2926 Saklan Indian Drive
6080 Center Drive, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, California 94595
Doug Hohbach
Lauren Carpenter Hohbach-Lewin
WHL Consulting Engineers, Inc. 260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite 150
350 South Figueroa Street, Suite 400 Palo Alto, California 94306
Ben Hushmand
Michael Cochrane Hushmand Associates, Inc.
Weidlinger Associates, Inc. 250 Goddard Road
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 350 Irvine, California 92618
Marina del Rey, California 90292
Peter Lee
John Gavan Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
KPFF Consulting Engineers One Front Street, Suite 2500
6080 Center Drive, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94111
Anne Lemnitzer
Tony Ghodsi University of California, Los Angeles
Englekirk Structural Engineers Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
925 Fort Stockton Drive, Suite 202 5731 Boelter Hall
San Diego, California 92103 Los Angeles, California 90095
Christine Goulet Marshall Lew

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
325 Davis Hall, University of California 5628 E. Slauson Avenue
Berkeley, California 94720 Los Angeles, California 90040
GCR 12-917-21 Project Participants F-3

Weian Liu Michael Mehrain
University of California, San Diego URS Corporation
Jacobs School of Engineering 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
9500 Gilman Drive, SERF 252 Los Angeles, California 90017
La Jolla, California 92093-0403
Navid Nastar
Michael Mahoney University of Southern California
Federal Emergency Management Agency Civil and Environmental Engineering
500 C Street, SW Kaprielian Hall, Room 225
Washington, D.C. 20472 3620 S. Vermont Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90089-2531
David Mar
Tipping Mar Patrick Smith
1906 Shattuck Avenue Fugro West, Inc.
Berkeley, California 94704 4820 McGrath Street, Suite 100
Ventura, California 93003
Neven Matasovic
Geosyntec Consultants
2100 Main Street, Suite 150
Huntington Beach, California 92648
F-4 Project Participants GCR 12-917-21

Soil Structure Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Structure Interaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Structure Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Shallow Foundation Deep Foundation

Moderately deep Deep

1. Strip Footing or Continuous Footing (L>>B)

• Provided for load bearing wall

• Provided for a row of columns which are closely spaced

2. Spread Footing or Isolated Footing

• Circular, Square and rectangular

• Provided to support more than one column

• Nature of the subsoil strata

• Nature of the superstructure

• The load that is coming on the foundation

• The requirements of the local building code

• The behavior of soil that will support the foundation system

• The geological condition of the soil

VST PMT DMT

• Grain-size analysis • Consolidation test

• A well defined failure surface

• A bulging of ground surface adjacent to the

• The ultimate load can be easily located.

100- 200 ve ry stiff 65- 85 de nse

>200 ha rd 85- 100 ve ry de nse

• Well defined wedge and slip surfaces only

• Slight bulging of the ground surface adjacent to

• Load settlement curve does not indicate ultimate

• Significant compression of the soil directly

• Poorly defined shear planes

• Soil zones beyond the loaded area being little

• Significant penetration of a wedge shaped soil

• Ultimate load can not be clearly recognized

• Ana lysis is a 2- D c o nditio n i.e fo r strip fo o ting

• The so il fa ils in a g e ne ra l she a r fa ilure m o de

• The lo a d is ve rtic a l a nd c o nc e ntric

• The soil in this zone remains in a state of

• The soil wedge abd immediately beneath

Zone II (bed and ae’d) : Zone of radial shear

Zone III (bef and ae’f) : Rankine passive zone

0 5.7 1.0 0.0

For strip footing : α1 = 1.0, α2 = 0.5

For φ = 0 (saturated clay) , qnu = 5.7 cu

The effective surcharge is reduced as the effective weight below the

 Df  The maximum value of Nc is 7.50

The analysis is valid for any value of Df/B

Nc, Nq, Nγ depends on roughness of base, depth of

s, d, and i stand for shape factor, depth factor, inclination factor

α angle of resultant R measured from vertical

0 5.14 1.0 0.0

40 75.3 64.1 93.7

For rectangular footing: B’= B – 2ex

The effective area of footing A’ = B’ x L’

qnu = cN c sc d c ic + q ( N q − 1) sq d q iq + 0.5γBN γ sγ d γ iγ W ' q = effective pressure at base

Nc, Nq, Nγ, are the same as those given by Vesic

1.2 Square and Circular

qnu = net ultimate bearing capacity in kN/m2

D’w = depth of water table measured from

Ranjan and Rao,1991

c1 H1 + c2 H 2 + .......... + cn H n  H 1 tan φ1 + H 2 tan φ2 + .......... + H n tan φn 

a) The bearing capacity of footing on a cohesive soil is unaffected by

c) For ϕ = 0, Nc = 5.14 (smooth base) and 5.7 (rough base)