International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

Soil Structure Interaction Effect on Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with

Isolated Footing
Dr. S. A. Halkude1, Mr. M. G. Kalyanshetti2, Mr. S. H. Kalyani3

(Civil Engg. Dept. Walchand Institute of Technology, Solapur, Solapur University, India)

Abstract to understand the dynamic behavior of such kind of

structures considering SSI. Present study attempts to
The seismic response of a structure is greatly learn the effect of soil flexibility on various response
influenced by Soil Structure Interaction (SSI). In this parameters of building frames. The effect of soil
study the effect of soil flexibility on the performance flexibility is suggested to be accounted through the
of building frame is investigated. Two SSI modes are consideration of springs of specified stiffness to
considered for the analysis; one is replacing soil by represent the soil. Many researchers have proposed
spring of equivalent stiffness (Discrete Support) and different methods to evaluate the effect of soil-
second by considering the whole soil mass (Elastic structure interaction from time to time. Winkler’s
Continuum). Symmetric space frames resting on idealization [10] (1867) represents the soil medium as
isolated footing of configurations 2 bay 2 storey a system of identical but mutually independent,
(2X2X2), 2 bay 5 storey (2X2X5) and 2 bay 8 storey closely spaced, discrete, linearly elastic springs.
(2X2X8) are considered with fixed base and flexible George Gazetas [1] (1991) has presented complete
base. The spring model is developed by using set of algebraic formulas and dimensionless charts for
stiffness equation along all 6 DOF and elastic readily computing the dynamic stiffness (K) and
continuum model is developed by Finite Element damping coefficient (c) of foundation harmonically
Method using SAP-2000. For SSI study three types of oscillating in a homogenous half space.
soil are considered i.e. Hard, Medium Hard and Soft Shekharchandra Datta [2] (2002) presented possible
Soil. The dynamic analysis is carried out using alternative models for the purpose of soil structure
Response Spectrum, given in IS1893-2002. The interaction analysis. Bhattacharya et al [3] (2004)
influence of soil structure interaction on various concluded that the effect of SSI may cause
structural parameters i.e. natural time period, base considerable increase in base shear of low-rise
shear, roof displacement, beam moment and column building frames particularly those with isolated
moment are presented. The study reveals that the SSI footing.
significantly affects on the response of the structure.
Finite Element Method has proved to be the effective The use of finite element method has attained a
method for consideration of elastic continuum below sudden spurt to study the complex interactive
foundation. behavior of structure. It is possible to model many
complex conditions with high degree of realism
Keywords: Soil Structure Interaction, Finite Element including nonlinear stress-strain behavior, non-
Method, Isolated Footing, Response Spectrum homogenous material condition, and change in
Analysis, Elastic Continuum, Winkler Method. geometry and so on. B.R. Jayalaxmi et al [4] (2009)
studied earthquake response of multistoried RC
frame with soil structure interaction effects by
modeling structure –foundation-soil system using
Finite Element Method. Seismic response of
1. Introduction buildings considering SSI exhibit variation based on
frequency content of motion and stiffness of soil.
In the era of rapid urbanization, due to paucity of Garg and Hora [5] (2012) analyzed the performance
land one is compelled to construct the structures on of frame-footing-soil system by considering plane
available relatively soft soil which otherwise were frame, infill frame, homogenous soil and layered soil
deemed to be unsuitable in the past. However due to mass. They concluded that shear force and bending
advancements in various ground improvement moment in superstructure get significantly altered
techniques it is possible to build the structure. due to differential settlement of soil mass.
However this will call upon the attention of designers

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2767

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

Objective of the study: The objective of the Component Description Data

present study is to determine the SSI effect on
Size of Beam 0.3 m x 0.4 m
various dynamic properties of R.C. frame such as
Natural Time Period, Base shear, Beam Moment, Frames Size of Column 0.3 m x 0.45 m
Column moment, etc. Effect of various soil and Thickness of slab 0.125 m
structural parameters are also studied to identify their
Isolated square 2 m x 2 m - 1m
effect on seismic performance of building frames.
footing depth
The above study is carried out by two SSI methods
i.e. discrete support (using spring) and Elastic Elastic Modulus 2.5 x 10⁷
Foundation
Continuum (using FEM). An attempt is also made to of concrete kN/m2
understand the effectiveness and utility of these Poisson's ratio of
0.2
models. concrete
Block of Soil 32m x 32m -
2. Study Methodology Mass 16m depth
Modulus Elasticity 65000, 35000,
Foundations are considered to be resting on three Soil
of soil 15000 kN/m2
types of soil namely, Hard Soil, Medium Hard Soil
and Soft Soil. These soils have been designated as E- Poisson's ratio of
0.3, 0.4
65000 (Hard Soil), E-35000 (Medium Hard Soil) and Soil
E-15000 (Soft Soil). The Elastic constant of these soil
are considered as per Bowel’s [5]. These are shown in 2.1 Idealization of discrete support
Table 1.
Table 1. Soil Elastic Constants Effect of soil flexibility is incorporated by
Soil Designa Modulus Poisson Unit considering equivalent springs with 6 DOF as shown
Type tion of ’s Ratio Weight in Figure1. The stiffness along these 6 degrees of
Elasticity (µ) (γ) freedom is determined as per Gazetas [1] and is shown
in Table3.
(kN/m2) (kN/m3)
Hard
E-65000 65000 0.3 18
Soil
Medium
Hard E-35000 35000 0.4 16
Soil
Soft Soil E-15000 15000 0.4 16

Symmetric building space frames of 2 bays 2 storey;

2 bay 5 storey and 2 bay 8 storey are considered. The
details of building frames, foundation and soil mass
considered for the study are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Geometric and material properties of

frame, footing and soil mass

Component Description Data

Number of storeys 2,5,8 Kx, Ky, Kz = Stiffness of equivalent soil springs along
Number of bays in X the translational DOF along X,Y and Z axis.
2
direction
Number of bays in Y Krx, Kry, Krz = Stiffness of equivalent rotational soil
Frames 2 springs along the rotational DOF along X,Y and Z
direction
axis.
Storey Height 3.2m
Bay width in X direction 5m Figure 1. Equivalent soil spring stiffness along 6
degrees of freedom
Bay width in Y direction 5m

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2768

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

Table 3. Spring Stiffness Equations 2.2 Idealization of Elastic Continuum

Soil Structure Interaction is also carried out by Finite
Degrees of Stiffness of equivalent soil spring
Element Method (FEM) by considering elastic
freedom
continuum below foundation. The finite soil mass is
considered based on convergence study, with
[2GL/(1-ν)](0.73+1.54χ0.75) with χ = boundary far beyond a region where structural
Vertical Ab/4L2
loading has no effect. This is assumed to be at a
Horizontal lateral offset of width of the building on all four sides
(lateral [2GL/(2-ν)](2+2.50χ0.85) with χ = Ab/4L2 and depth equal to 1.5 times the width of building.
direction) Considering this, soil bock of 32m x 32m in plan and
Horizontal having 16m depth is used for the study. The
[2GL/(2-ν)](2+2.50χ0.85)-[0.2/(0.75-
(longitudinal ν)]GL[1-(B/L)] with χ = A /4L2 superstructure-foundation-soil system in three-
b
direction) dimensional form is modeled by FEM.
Rocking
(about [G/(1-ν)]Ibx0.75(L/B)0.25[2.4+0.5(B/L)] 3. FEM Formulation
longitudinal)
Rocking
3.1 Soil Mass
(about [G/(1-ν)]Iby0.75(L/B)0.15
lateral) The soil mass below the foundation is discretized as 8
Torsion 3.5G Ibz0.75(B/L)0.4(Ibz/B4)0.2 noded solid elements with 3 DOF at each node. This
Ab= Area of the foundation considered; B and L= will help to create the continuity and compatibility in
Half-width and half-length of a rectangular stress and strain in all 3 directions. This will assist in
foundation, respectively; Ibx, Iby, and Ibz = Moment of more precise evaluation of stress and strain in soil
inertia of the foundation area with respect to mass. The soil mass is assumed to be linear, elastic
longitudinal, lateral and vertical axes, respectively. and isotropic with input parameters namely, unit
weight of soil (γ), poison’s ratio (µ), modulus of
The values of stiffness for three types of soil are elasticity (E) and shear modulus of soil (G).
calculated as per the equations given in table 3 and
are presented in Table 4. 3.2 Frame Elements
Table 4. Spring Stiffness for Different Soil Type The beams and columns are modeled as frame
element with 2 nodes. The element has 6 DOF at
each node. Translation in X, Y, Z direction and
Stiffness of equivalent soil spring (kN/m)
rotation about X, Y, Z axis. It is a uniaxial element
with tension, compression and bending capabilities.
Soil Type E-65000 E-35000 E-15000
The element is defined by two nodes with the input
Horizontal of the cross-sectional area, and the material
(longitudinal 132352.9 70312.5 30133.9 properties.
direction)
Horizontal
3.3 Foundation
(lateral 132352.9 70312.5 30133.9
direction) The foundation material is discretized as 8-noded
brick element. The foundation material is assumed to
Vertical 162142.9 94583.3 40535.7 be elastic and isotropic. The element is defined by
Rotation about eight nodes, thickness, and the material properties
the
128512.1 74965.4 32128.0
longitudinal Three dimensional finite element modeling of the
axis whole structure-foundation-soil system is generated
Rotation about using software SAP2000.Two typical models viz.
132943.6 77550.4 33235.9 Spring model and FEM model are as shown in the
the lateral axis
Figure2 and Figure3 respectively.
Rotation about
59528.0 29764.0 12756.0
vertical axis

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2769

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

The dynamic analysis is carried out by Response

Spectrum Method [8]. Response Spectrum given in IS:
1893-2000 is used for the analysis. The analysis of
both the model is carried out by SAP 2000. Effects of
SSI on different parameters are studied i.e. Natural
Time Period, Roof Displacement, Base Shear, Beam
bending moment, Column bending moment. These
are discussed one by one below.

4.1 Natural Time Period

The variation in Natural Time Period of structure of
fixed base and flexible base for both the models are
presented in Figure 4, 5 and 6 for 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and
Figure 2. Spring Model (Discrete Support) 2x2x8 building frames respectively. The combined
representation for all the frames for all support
conditions are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 3. FEM Model (Elastic continuum)

Figure 4. Variation of Natural Time Period for

4. Parametric Study 2X2X2 structure for different support conditions

Three symmetric space frames viz. 2X2X2, 2X2X5

and 2X2X8 with isolated footings along with two SSI
models viz. Spring Model and FEM Model are
considered. The effect of different soil and structural
parameters on seismic performance of building is
studied considering and without considering SSI.
Various parameters are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Formulation of Parametric Variation

Frames 2x2x2, 2x2x5, 2x2x8

Base Fixed Base, Flexible Base

Conditions (E-65000, E-35000, E-15000)

SSI Models Spring Model, FEM Model Figure 5. Variation of Natural Time Period for
2X2X5 structure for different support conditions

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2770

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

4.2 Roof Displacement

The variations for Roof Displacement are presented
in Figure 8, 9, and 10 and collectively for all support
conditions and building frames presented in
Figure11.

Figure 6. Variation of Natural Time Period for

2X2X8 structure for different support conditions

Figure 8. Variation of Roof Displacement for

2X2X2 structure for different support conditions

Figure 7. Variation of Natural Time Period for

different Building Frames using Spring Model
and FEM Model Figure 9. Variation of Roof Displacement for
2X2X5 structure for different support conditions
From Figure 4 to 7 it is observed that with the
increase in soil flexibility the Natural Time Period
increases nonlinearly. The rate of increase of natural
time period becomes steeper with softer soil. FEM
model shows higher time period than the spring
model. This difference is less for low rise building
and goes on increasing with height of building. In
case of hard soil the difference is less but for softer
soils difference is large which is in the range of 45-
55%. FEM model incorporates the flexibility more
precisely due to realistic idealization (Elastic
continuum) hence the higher time period is observed
for softer soil. From above all discussion it can be
stated that spring models under estimates the time
period for softer soil. Thus for hard soil spring
model is suitable and for softer soil FEM model is
Figure 10. Variation of Roof Displacement for
suitable.
2X2X8 structure for different support conditions

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2771

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

Figure 13. Variation of Base Shear for 2X2X5

Figure 11. Variation of Roof Displacement for structure for different support conditions
different Building Frames using Spring Model
and FEM Model

From Figure 8 to 11, it is observed that the Roof

Displacement increases with soil flexibility. In spring
model there is 50 to 70% of increment in Roof
displacement from fixed base to flexible base (soft
soil) whereas in FEM model this is in the range of
200 to 250 %. The spring model doesn’t reflect the
flexibility with high precision due its idealization of
only 6 DOF. However FEM model correctly reflects
the flexibility as the complete elastic continuum is
used therefore roof displacement increases with
higher rate with increase in softness of soil.

4.3 Base Shear Figure 14. Variation of Base Shear for 2X2X8
structure for different support conditions
The variations for Base Shear are presented in
Figure12, 13, and 14 and are collectively shown for
all support conditions and building frames in
Figure15.

Figure 15. Variation of Base Shear for different

Building Frames using Spring Model and FEM
Figure 12. Variation of Base Shear for 2X2X2 Model
structure for different support conditions

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2772

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

From Figure 12 to 15, it is observed that Base Shear

increases with increase in base flexibility. For small
height of building the variation in base shear with
increase in soil flexibility is marginal but it increases
with increase in height of building. The increment in
Base Shear from fixed base to flexible base (soft soil)
is in the range of 20- 40% for spring model and 50 -
70% for FEM model. Base shear in FEM model is
3-5 times than Spring Model.

4.4 Beam Moment

The variations for Beam Moment are presented in
Figure16, 17, and 18 and collectively for all support
conditions and building frames in Figure19.
Figure 18. Variation of Beam Moment for 2X2X8
structure for different support conditions

Figure 16. Variation of Beam Moment for 2X2X2

structure for different support conditions
Figure 19. Variation of Beam Moment for
different Building Frames using Spring Model
and FEM Model

As the soil flexibility increases, Beam Moment

increases. There is @ 20% of increment in Beam
Moment from fixed base to flexible base (soft soil)
for low rise building whereas this increment is in the
range of 70-80% in high rise buildings. Beam
Moment in FEM Model is about 40-60% more than
spring model. Therefore spring model underestimates
the bending moment especially for soft soil. The
increase in the BM is due to differential settlement of
supports due to support flexibility.

4.5 Column Moment

The variations for column moment are presented in
Figure 17. Variation of Beam Moment for 2X2X5 Figure 20, 21, and 22 and collectively for all support
structure for different support conditions conditions and building frames in Figure 23.

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2773

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

Figure 20. Variation of Column Moment for

Figure 23. Variation of Column Moment for
2X2X2 structure for different support conditions different Building Frames using Spring Model
and FEM Model

From Figure 20 – 23, it is observed that the soil

flexibility increases the column moment. From fixed
base to flexible base (soft soil) there is about 60-
70% of increment in spring model whereas 200 to
250% in FEM model. Column moment in FEM
Model is 60-80% higher than Spring Model.

5. Conclusion

1) The natural period of structure increases due

to SSI effect. For soft soil the effect is more
prominent. Natural time period is a primary
parameter which regulates the seismic
lateral response of the building frames. Thus
Figure 21. Variation of Column Moment for evaluation of this parameter without
2X2X5 structure for different support conditions considering SSI may cause serious error in
seismic design.
2) Natural period, Roof displacement, Base
shear, Beam moment and Column moment
are observed to be increasing with increase
in soil flexibility. The variations are less for
low storey building and goes on increasing
with increase in storey height.
3) Idealization of supporting soil by spring is
an approximate approach. This doesn’t
reflect the flexibility with high precision.
Thus it yields the less accurate results.
However the realistic idealization of
supporting soil is possible by FEM. It is
possible to incorporate variation in the soil
properties, layered soil and boundary
conditions etc. This will produce the precise
data than spring model. The study also
Figure 22. Variation of Column Moment for reveals that there is difference in the results
2X2X8 structure for different support conditions of both. The spring model underestimates
the values.

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2774

 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 3 Issue 1, January - 2014

4) Difference in spring model and FEM model plate system on winkler foundation. JEng
is less up to medium hard soil. For soft soils Mech Div ASCE 1977;103(4): 589-600.
this difference is high. Therefore one can [11] Hetenyi M. A general solution for the
employ Spring models for hard soil and bending of beams on elastic foundations of
FEM models for soft soil arbitrary continuity. Journal of Appl Phys
5) Finite Element Method has proved to be a 1950; 21:55-8.
very useful method for studying the effect of
SSI. However to reduce the complexity for Authors Biography
practical purpose, at least Winkler
hypothesis should be employed to consider First Author
SSI instead of fixed base.

6. References

[1] George Gazetas, (1991) Member, ASCE,

Dr. S. A. Halkude,
“Formulas and charts for impedances of
surface and embedded foundations.” M.Tech. (IIT, Bombay in Civil Engineering), Ph.D.
[2] Sekhar Chandra Dutta, Rana Roy, “A (IIT Bombay). Dean, faculty of Engineering &
critical review on idealization and modeling Technology, Solapur University, Solapur
for interaction among soil-foundation (Maharashtra, India). Recipient of IGS-Dr. B.B. Rai-
structure system”, Computers and Structures S. N. Gupta Bi-ennial Prize for the best paper on
80 (2002), pp.1579_1594 “Earth and Earth Retaining Structures”. Also
[3] Koushik Bhattacharya, Shekhar Chandra recipient of Eminent Educationist Award by National
Datta, “Assessing lateral period of building & International Compendium, New Delhi (India).
frames incorporating soil flexibility”, Fellow member of The Institution of Engineers
Journal of sound and vibration, 269 (2004), (India), Life Member of Indian Society for Technical
pp.795-821 Education, New Delhi and Life Member of Indian
[4] B.R. Jayalekshmi, (2007) “Earthquake Society for Rock Mechanics and Tunnelling
response of multistoreyedR.C. frames with Technology, New Delhi
soil structure interaction effects.”
[5] VivekGarg, M.S. Hora, “A review on Second Author
interaction behaviour of structure-
foundation-soilsystem.”,International
Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications,Vol. 2, Issue 6, November-
December 2012, pp.639-644
[6] Bowles, J.E.(1998).”Foundation Analysis Mr. M. G. Kalyanshetti
and design”,McGraw Hills, New York.
[7] B.R.Jayalekshmi, Chandrashekhar.A, B.E. (Civil), M.E. (Civil - Structures). Research
KattaVenkataramana, R.Shivashankar, Scholar and Assistant Professor, Walchand Institute
Dynamic FE Analysis of multistoreyed of technology, Solapur . Pursuing doctoral study at
frames including soil foundation structure Solapur University. Member of Institution of
interaction effects, NITK Research Bulletin Engineers (India), Indian Society for Structural
Vol.16. No.1, June 2007, pp 14 to 18 Engineer (ISSE).
[8] IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures- Third Author
Generalprovisions and Buildings , Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[9] Shiji P.V, Suresh S., Glory Joseph, “Effect
of Soil Structure Interaction in Seismic
Loads of Framed Structures”; International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research Volume 4, Issue 5, May-2013 Mr. S. H. Kalyani
ISSN 2229-5518.
[10] Brown CB, Laurent JM, Tilton JR. Beam- B.E. (Civil Engineering), M.E. (Civil - Structures),

IJERTV3IS11102 www.ijert.org 2775