Modeling and Analysis of Structural Systems for

Efficient Design
Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction

Week 6 Handout
1
2
 Week 6 Topics

◼ Topics for the week:

◼ What is Soil-Structure Interaction?
◼ Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on Building Structures
◼ Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction
◼ Kinematic Soil Structure Interaction
◼ Modeling of Foundations and Basements

3
 Week 6 Learning Outcomes

◼Upon completion of this week’s content you will be able to:

◼ Describe the effects of soil-structure interaction on the response of
a structural system to loading
◼ Define inertial soil-structure interaction and kinematic soil-structure
interactions
◼ Approximately account for the influence of soil-structure interaction
in a structural analysis model

4
 Week 6: Significance on the Job

◼Importance to engineering practice

◼ Being able to account for the impact of soil and foundation
flexibility can be important to the demands on a structural system.
Understanding how to approximately model these effects is
important to structural engineering and design.

5
Next Scene: What is Soil-Structure Interaction

6
1
7
What is Soil-Structure Interaction?
9
 What is Soil-Structure Interaction?

◼ Transfer
of loading from point of application to final resistance (typically the
surrounding soil) goes through three different systems as part of the load path:
◼ Structural system
◼ Foundation
◼ Soil

◼ Soil-Structure
Interaction (or Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction) is the process
of modeling the interactions between these three systems.

◼ Asa Structural Engineer, we are looking to understand the impact of the soil
properties on the demands in the structural and foundation system

10
Applications of Soil-Structure Interaction
◼ Subgrade structures Stiffness of the soil
prevents lateral Applied Loads
◼ Culverts deformation of the wall
◼ Piles
and Drilled Shafts
◼ Tunnels

◼ Building
Structures for Seismic and
Wind Loading
◼ Shallow foundations
◼ Deep foundations (piles, drilled shafts)
◼ Basements

◼ Vibrating Machine Foundations

11
Reference Documents

12
Reference Documents

◼ Design provisions related to soil-structure

interaction

◼ Provided to assist engineers including soil

effects on nonlinear static pushover
analyses

◼ Processcan also be utilized to develop soil

modeling for linear analyses

13
Reference Documents

◼ Synthesizes the large body of literature on

Soil-Structure Interaction

◼ Techniques are presented to assist

engineers to include the effects of SSI in
analysis models

14
Reference Documents

◼ Provide guidance to engineers on when it is

important to include Soil-Structure
Interaction

◼ Shows examples of how to implement the

different techniques for including Soil-
Structure Interaction

15
SSI in Design Standards

◼ Section12.13 includes provisions on

including soil flexibility in the design and
analysis of a structure

◼ Chapter19 includes provisions to determine

the seismic demands with all analysis
methods considering the effects of SSI

16
SSI in Design Standards

◼ Section 7.2.7 requires SSI to be included

for structures where it increases the
spectral acceleration and allows it in other
cases

◼ Sections 8.4 and 8.5 provide guidance on

including the flexibility and damping of
foundations in analysis models

17
 Soil-Structure Interaction Keywords

◼ The impacts of the interaction between the soil, the foundation and
the structure are classified into:
◼ Kinematic Interactions
◼ Inertial Interactions

18
 Kinematic Interactions

◼ Kinematic Interaction modifies the Free-Field ground motion to a Foundation Input

Motion (FIM) as a result of spatial variability in the Free-Field ground motion
◼ The two different kinematic interactions
effects are:
◼ Base Slab Averaging (shallow foundations) –
caused by incoherence over the base area
and non-vertical incidence of incoming
seismic waves
◼ Embedment Effects – foundation level
motions are reduced due to ground
accelerations decreasing with depth below
the free surface

19
 Inertial Interactions

◼ Inertial Interaction is the dynamic interaction between the soil, the foundation
and the structure due to the foundation input motion
◼ The three different inertial interactions
effects are:
◼ Period Elongation due to the flexibility of the
soil
◼ Radiation Damping due to the generation and
propagation of waves from the foundation into
the surrounding soil
◼ Soil Damping due to the hysteretic (material)
response of the surrounding soil

20
Direct Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis

◼ The soil is modeled as a continuum

◼ The foundation elements are typically solid or shell elements

◼ The structural system is modeled with frame elements

◼ This level of modeling is very complex and resource intensive, this is only done on very specific
projects where this amount of soil modeling is needed (nuclear power plants, storage tanks,
tunnels, …)

21
Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Using Springs Elements

◼ The soil is modeled using spring (and dashpot) elements to represent the properties of the soil

◼ The foundation elements are typically shell (shallow foundations) or frame (piles) elements

◼ The structural system is modeled with frame (girders) and shell (bridge deck) elements

◼ The substructure approach is the most commonly used approach for modeling structural systems
and will be the focus of this course

Frame elements for

girders and steel piles
Shell elements for
concrete bridge deck
Spring elements for
soil-pile interaction
22
Next Scene: Where is SSI Important?

23
24
Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Building
Structures
26
 Key Concepts Related to SSI

◼ SSI is not difficult to implement (especially in a linear static analysis)

◼ It may require iterations and bounding analyses to capture the response envelope

◼ In most cases, including SSI will reduce seismic force demands but there are cases (site specific
spectra) where period elongation increases spectral accelerations

◼ Foundation flexibility will increase displacements and may increase story drift in tall buildings

◼ Increased displacements due to soil flexibility will increase P-Delta effects

◼ Adding foundation flexibility can change the deformation pattern of the structure which may stress
certain elements differently from the fixed-base condition

◼ Effective shear wave velocity is a key parameter in several SSI equations and techniques

27
Building Footprint Effect

◼ The dimensions of the building footprint

have been shown to correlate with spectral
demands

◼ The larger the building footprint, the greater

the reduction in short period spectral
response

◼ This increased effect is due to the

kinematic interaction effects of base slab
averaging

◼ The building on the left will have a greater

reduction in spectral accelerations due to
the larger area over which base slab
averaging occurs

28
Foundation Embedment Effect

◼ The depth of foundation embedment has been shown to correlate with spectral demands
(primarily in the shorter period range)

◼ The deeper the building is embedded, the greater the reduction in short period spectral
response

◼ This effect is due to the fact that ground motion amplitudes decrease with depth

◼ The building on the left will have a reduction in ground motion amplitude while the building on
the right will have minimal reduction

29
Structure-to-Soil Stiffness Ratio Effect

◼ The ratio of the structural stiffness to the

foundation stiffness has an impact on the
structure response

◼ For a structure with a high structure-to-soil

stiffness ratio, the added translation and
rotation of the system under the same loads
will lengthen the fundamental period of the
structure

◼ The lengthened period of vibration typically

decreases the spectral acceleration demands

◼ This effect is most significant with concentrated

lateral systems (braced frames, shear walls)
and less effect occurs for more distributed
systems (moment frames)

30
 Period Lengthening vs Spectral Demands

Short period structure with

elongated period has larger
spectral demands

Longer period structure with

elongated period has reduced
spectral demands

31
Foundation Rocking Effects

◼ Deformation patterns for coupled vertical

lateral force-resisting systems can vary
significantly when foundation flexibility is
included

◼ The flexible base condition allows the

braced frames to rock which relieves
some of the stress in the braces

◼ This does result in greater rotations of

the non-braced bay beam ends

32
Foundation Rocking Effects

◼ Deformation patterns for coupled vertical

lateral force-resisting systems can vary
significantly when foundation flexibility is
included

◼ The compatibility of the vertical lateral

force-resisting system and gravity system
(and the relative stiffness) must be
considered to determine the effect of the
foundation flexibility on the entire
structural system

◼ Coupled shear wall systems with a

flexible base could also experience
significant demands on short coupling
beams

33
 Rule of Thumb Test for SSI Significance

◼ Significance of SSI on a structure can be estimated using a ‘Rule of Thumb” equation

◼ The equation combines three important parameters that are relatively straightforward to
determine

◼ The Structure-to-Soil Stiffness ratio is shown to correlate with the likelihood that SSI inertial
effects will be significant

h
 0.1 Section 3.2 of FEMA P-2091
vsT
◼ If the inequality is satisfied, then the effects of SSI are likely to be significant

34
 Structure-Soil Stiffness Ratio

h
 0.1
where
vsT hn
h’ = effective structure height measured from base of
foundation to center of mass of fundamental mode (in ft) hm
h’ = he + hm = he + 2/3hn h’
hm = height to center of mass of fundamental mode (can
assume 2/3hn) (ft) he
he = depth of foundation embedment (ft) [ASCE 7
Section 19.4.2]
hn = structural height defined in ASCE 7 (ft) [ASCE 7
Section 11.2] 35
 Structure-Soil Stiffness Ratio (Cont.)

h Determining Average Effective Shear Wave Velocity

 0.1
1. Determine footing embedment depth, he (ft)
2. Determine effective profile depth, zp (ft)
vsT z p = ( B 3 L)0.25 EQ 2-18c NIST (2012)
where
3. Determine the effective depth for foundation
vs = average effective shear wave velocity (ft/s) for rotation, he + zp (ft)
site soil conditions, taken as the average value of 4. Determine the average low strain shear wave
velocity over the effective depth for foundation velocity, vso, over the effective depth for
rotation determined using vso and a velocity foundation rotation (ft/s)
reduction factor from ASCE 7-22 Table 19.3-1 5. Determine the effective shear wave velocity
ratio, (vs/vso), [ASCE 7-22 Table 19.3-1]
vso = average low strain shear wave velocity (ft/s)
6. Determine the average effective shear wave
for site over the effective depth for foundation
velocity, vs = (vs/vso)(vso)
rotation
(vs/vso) = effective shear wave velocity ratio from References: (FEMA P-2091 Section 3.3)
ASCE 7-22 Table 19.3-1 (ASCE 7-22 Section 19.3)
36
 Structure-Soil Stiffness Ratio (Cont.)

h
 0.1
vsT
where
vs = average effective shear wave velocity (ft/s) for
site soil conditions, taken as the average value of
velocity over the effective depth for foundation
rotation determined using vso and a velocity
reduction factor from ASCE 7-16 Table 19.3-1
vso = average low strain shear wave velocity (ft/s)
for site over the effective depth for foundation vs
rotation vs = ( )(vso )
vso
(vs/vso) = effective shear wave velocity ratio from
ASCE 7-16 Table 19.3-1
37
 Structure-Soil Stiffness Ratio (Cont.)

h
 0.1
vsT
where
T = fixed-based fundamental period of vibration for the
structure (seconds/cycle)

Can be determined from a computer model of the

structure or using the approximate fundamental period of
vibration calculation using ASCE 7-22 Equation 12.8-7

38
SSI Trends

◼ Structure-to-Soil stiffness ratio is:

◼ Higher for stiffer lateral systems
◼ Higher for the softer site classes
◼ Increases with the height of the
structure
◼ Does not reach the 0.10 threshold
for Site Class A and B in any case
◼ Only exceeds the 0.10 threshold for
Site Class D and E with the
exception of taller SCBF and RCSW
on Site Class C

39
Next Scene: Kinematic Soil-Structure Interaction

40
41
Inertial SSI
43
 Kinematic Soil-Structure Interaction

◼ Two general classes of kinematic SSI

◼ Base Slab Averaging
◼ Embedment Effects

◼ Both these effects have the impact of reducing the ground motion effects on the structure

◼ The magnitude of the impact is based on:

◼ The geometry of the building and foundation

◼ Frequency content and spatial variability of the ground motion

◼ ASCE 7 (Section 19.4) only allows Kinematic SSI to be included when modifying the site-specific
Response Spectrum for Nonlinear Response History Analysis

◼ ASCE 41 (Section 8.5) requires SSI effects be included if it increases spectral accelerations and
allows it for other cases. Kinematic SSI can be included by modeling or by empirical calculations

44
 Base Slab Averaging

◼ Reductions in seismic demands due to Base Slab

Averaging for buildings with a large base area are
due to ground motion incoherence that occurs over
the base

◼ Variations are due to differences in seismic wave

arrival time and/or variations in soil properties
throughout the site

◼ In short, different portions of the building feel

different shaking, the effect of averaging these
disparate motions results in the overall reduction in
ground motion effect

◼ The effect is most pronounced in the short period

range
45
 Base Slab Averaging

◼ The impact of base slab averaging is only applicable to interconnected foundations

Applicable in this case if the

Not applicable in this case slab is sufficiently thick

Almost certainly applicable

Applicable in this case if the
tie beams are also on the
diagonals in the foundation
plane

Sufficient slab thickness is provided if the slab is stiff

enough not to be considered a flexible diaphragm. 46
 Base Slab Averaging in ASCE Standards

◼ The reduction due to base slab averaging increases with the overall foundation size (i.e. building
footprint)

◼ In ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 , the foundation size and the average effective shear wave velocity of
the soil over an effective depth are utilized to determine the base slab averaging impact

◼ The effective foundation size, be, is the primary parameter utilized in the calculation

be = Abase  260 ft where Abase is the area of the overall foundation (outside to outside)

◼ The average effective shear wave velocity over the effective depth is only used to determine
whether the ASCE 7 and 41 equations are valid for the prescriptive requirements

◼ ASCE 7-22 allows Base Slab Averaging for Site Classes C, CD, D, DE or E

◼ There are some differences between the application in ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 (ASCE 41 is
generally less restrictive)
47
 Example Determination of Base Slab Averaging
8 @ 30 ft = 240 ft
◼ Reference ASCE 7-22 Section 19.4.1

◼ 16 in Thick Mat Foundation

◼ Site Class C with a Shear wave

4 @ 35 ft = 140 ft
velocity of 1,300 ft/s

1. Site Class is C (only C, CD, D, DE, or E is

allowed)
2. Effective Foundation Size (183.3 ft) is less
than 260 ft.
3. Period of Vibration for the structure is 0.3 s
(0.2 s is the minimum).
b 183.3 ft
bo = 0.00071( e ) = 0.00071( ) = 0.43 [EQ 19.4-3] be = L  W = 240 ft *140 ft = 183.3 ft
T 0.3s
Effective Foundation Size
bo 6 bo8 b012
Bbsa = 1 + bo + bo +
2 4
+ + = 1.227 [EQ 19.4-2]
2 4 6
1 where RRSbsa is the Response Spectral
RRSbsa = 0.25 + 0.75{ 2
[1 − (exp(−2bo 2 ))  Bbsa ]}0.5 = 0.937 [EQ 19.4-1]
bo Modification factor for Base Slab Averaging.
Must be greater than 0.7.
48
Base Slab Averaging – General Trends

Calculations based on an effective The minimum period of vibration for

foundation size of be = 200 ft. the equations to be valid is 0.2 s.

49
 Embedment Effects

◼ Reductions in seismic demands due to Embedment

Effects is based on the fact that the ground
accelerations at the surface (free-field) are greater
than for those at depths below the ground surface

◼ The greater the embedded depth of the foundation

the greater the reduction in input motion

Free-Field Motion

Motion at Depth
of Basement

Bedrock Motion

50
Depth of Embedment

◼ In accordance with ASCE 7-22, Section 19.4.2: “Not greater than 20ft. A minimum of 75% of the
foundation footprint shall be present at the embedment depth. The foundation embedment on
sloping sites shall be the shallowest embedment.”

Spread Footing with orthogonal grade beams

Mat Foundation depth of slab, e2 = embedment depth, e
depth of the foundation = embedment depth, e

51
Depth of Embedment

◼ In accordance with ASCE 7-22, Section 19.4.2: “Not greater than 20ft. A minimum of 75% of the
foundation footprint shall be present at the embedment depth. The foundation embedment on
sloping sites shall be the shallowest embedment.”

24.5 ft

Basement with perimeter and interior strip footing

depth of basement slab, e2 = embedment depth, e Bottom of Slab

2-Story Basement with perimeter and interior strip footing

maximum allowed depth, emax = embedment depth, e = 20 ft
52
 Example Determination of
Embedment Effects

5 @ 13 ft = 65 ft
◼ Reference ASCE 7-22 Section 19.4.2
◼ 16 in Thick Mat Foundation
◼ Site Class C with a Shear wave velocity of

2 @ 12 ft =
1,300 ft/s (average)

25.3 ft
24 ft
◼ SDS = 1.0
◼ Low strain shear velocity over embedment
depth (vso) of 800 ft/s
1. Embedment depth, e = 20ft (limited by maximum 8 @ 30 ft = 240 ft
allowed by ASCE 7 since actual e = 25.3 ft)
2. Determine average effective shear wave velocity over
embedment depth using Table 19.3-1, vs = 0.87*800
ft/s = 696 ft/s
3. Period of Vibration for the structure is 0.3 s (0.2 s is
the minimum).
2 e
RRSe = 0.25 + 0.75[cos( )] = 0.87 [EQ 19.4-5]
Tvs
where RRSe is the Response Spectral Modification
factor for Embedment. Must be greater than 0.7. 53
 Embedment Effects – General Trends

Calculations based on an
embedment of e = 20 ft. Maximum allowed reduction of 0.7 for combination
of Base Slab Averaging and Embedment. 54
 Combination of Base Slab Averaging
and Embedment Effects

5 @ 13 ft = 65 ft
◼ Reference ASCE 7-22 Section 19.4.1
and 19.4.2

◼ RRSbsa = 0.94

2 @ 12 ft =
◼ RRSe = 0.87

24 ft
1. Minimum product of RRSbsa and RRSe shall not be less
than 0.7

4 @ 35 ft = 140 ft
RRS = RRSbsa  RRSe = 0.94  0.87 = 0.82  0.70
where RRS is the Response Spectral
Modification factor for the combination of Base
Slab Averaging and Embedment at T = 0.3s.

8 @ 30 ft = 240 ft
55
 Kinematic SSI Effects (ASCE 7 and ASCE 41)

◼ Base Slab Averaging and Embedment Effects both tend to reduce the spectral demands on a
building structure

◼ ASCE 7 only allows base slab averaging and embedment to be applied to reduce the spectral
acceleration ordinates at each period of the spectrum for use in nonlinear response history
analysis

◼ The maximum reduction to the spectrum in ASCE 7 is 30% (RRSbsa x RRSe ≥ 0.7)

◼ ASCE 41 requires SSI when an increase in the fundamental period increases spectral demands
and allows kinematic interactions to be included in the analysis

◼ ASCE 41 requires the mathematical model to include flexible base conditions per Section 8.4.2. if
kinematic interactions are included

◼ The maximum reduction to the spectrum in ASCE 41 is 50% (RRSbsa x RRSe ≥ 0.5)

56
Next Scene: Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction

57
58
Kinematic Interactions
60
 Inertial SSI Interactions

◼ Inertial soil-structure interaction refers to displacements and rotations at the foundation level that
result from inertia-driven forces such as base shear and moment

◼ The displacements and rotations can also be developed through statically applied loads

◼ Inertial displacements and rotations can be a significant source of flexibility and energy
dissipation in the soil-structure system

◼ The additional flexibility provided by modeling the foundation has the effect of increasing the
natural period of the structure (period lengthening)

◼ The deformations in the foundation increase the energy dissipation through foundation damping

◼ Inertial SSI can be used for all analysis methods in ASCE 7

61
Different Models for Structure and Foundation Modeling

Rigid Base: Soil supports with Rigid Foundation-Flexible Soil – Rigid foundation
infinite resistance (idealized elements and soil springs to represent soil compliance
fixed boundary condition)

62
Different Models for Structure and Foundation Modeling

Reinforced concrete Deep foundation

footing modeled with elements (piles, drilled
frame or shell elements shafts, …) modeled
with frame element

Spring elements
Reinforced concrete distributed to represent
footing modeled with footing resistance to
frame or shell elements structural actions Spring elements to
represent soil-
Flexible Foundation-Flexible Soil – Flexible foundation foundation response
elements and soil springs to represent soil compliance 63
 Effect of Foundation Flexibility on Response

y y
D
Dfh Dfr
D D Fixed Base Structure:
m m D = Structural deflection (FL3/3EI)
F

Flexible Base Structure:

L L D = D + D fh + D fr
EI EI where:
D = Structural deflection (FL3/3EI)
Deflected
Shape
Dfh = Horizontal foundation deflection
Dfr = Tip deflection due to foundation
rotation

Idealized Rigid Idealized Rigid

Support Foundation Foundation
Element springs
64
 Effect of Foundation Flexibility on Response

3EI F
y y k= 3 D=
D L k
Dfh Dfr
D
2 m
F T= = 2
m m k  k
= m mD
EI m T 2 = 4 2 = 4 2
F F
D
L L
EI D = D + D fh + D fr
mD
T 2 = 4 2
F
T T
Idealized Rigid Idealized Rigid Increased flexibility at the foundation
Support Foundation Foundation
Element springs results in Period Lengthening
65
 Parameters Affecting Period Lengthening

h h B m
◼ Several parameters affect period lengthening for structures: , , , ,
vsT B L  s 4 BLh
◼ The dimensionless parameter that is considered most important in controlling SSI effects is the
structure-to-soil stiffness ratio:
h
where vsT
h’ = effective structure height measured from base of foundation to center of
mass of fundamental mode (ft)
h’ = he + hm = he + 2/3hn
hm = height to center of mass of fundamental mode (can assume 2/3hn) (ft)
he = depth of foundation embedment (ft) [ASCE 7 Section 19.4.2]
hn = structural height defined in ASCE 7 (ft) [ASCE 7 Section 11.2]

66
Parameters Affecting Period Lengthening

◼ For typical structures on soil or weathered

rock the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio is: Moment Braced Frames and
◼ Less than 0.1 for moment frame structures Frames Shear Walls
◼ Between 0.1 and 0.5 for braced frame and
shear wall structures

◼ Period lengthening increases markedly with

structure-to-soil stiffness ratio

Plot of Period Lengthening Ratio (Tf/T)

versus structure-to-soil stiffness ratio
for square foundation (L=B)

67
Effect of Period Lengthening on Seismic Base Shear and Displacements

Period lengthening can result in increased Period lengthening results in increased

spectral accelerations (short periods) or spectral displacements, independent of
decreased spectral accelerations (periods > 0.5 s). the period of the system.

68
Examples of Period Lengthening

Example acceleration and displacement spectra for example

structures considering fixed-base and flexible-base conditions.
(FEMA P-2091)
69
 Foundation Damping

◼ In order to correctly model soil-structure interaction for dynamic effects, it is also necessary to
include the effects of Foundation Damping

◼ Foundation Damping is composed of two different effects:

◼ Soil Damping
◼ Radiation Damping

◼ Foundation Damping is a direct contributor to the flexible-base system damping, b0, used in
dynamic analyses:
where
1
b0 = b f + bi -bf is the foundation damping
-bi is the superstructure fixed-base structural damping (typically 5%)
(T ) n
-n is taken as 3 for linear viscous damping and 2 otherwise (e.g. hysteretic)
T

◼ Observations from studies (Stewart et al., 1996) shows that bf ranges from 0 to 25%

70
 SSI Effects on Wind-Controlled Structures

◼ Period
lengthening would also have effects on the demands on a structure due to
wind-excitation, similar to seismic there are cases where it would increase
demands and cases where it could reduce demands

◼ Theincrease in foundation damping would also have the benefit of reducing

wind-induced accelerations

71
 Soil Damping and Radiation Damping

◼ Soil damping
◼ Hysteretic (material) damping of the soil.
◼ Similar to inherent damping in the superstructure
◼ Independent of the flexible-base period of the structure

◼ Radiation damping
◼ Damping in the soil-foundation-structure system caused by the generation and propagation of waves
away from the foundation
◼ Caused by the dynamic displacements of the foundation relative to the free-field (surface) displacements
◼ Radiation damping is larger when the structure-to-soil stiffness [h’/(vsT)] ratio is larger

72
 Formulation of Foundation Damping

Moment Braced Frames and

◼ Calculation of Foundation Damping is a Frames Shear Walls
complex process including Soil Damping and
Radiation Damping.

◼ A good summary of these developments can be

found in Soil-Structure Interaction for Building
Structures (NIST GCR 12-917-21)

◼ Foundation Damping increases with structure-

to-soil stiffness ratio

◼ ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 provide an equation for Plot of Foundation Damping (bf) versus structure-to-
foundation damping: soil stiffness ratio for square foundation (L=B)

(T ) 2 − 1 where
bf =[ T ]b s + b rd [ASCE 7-22 EQ 19.3-3]
-bs is the soil hysteretic damping ratio
T
( ) 2 [ASCE 41-17 EQ 8-21]
T -brd is the radiation damping ratio
73
 Inertial SSI Effects in ASCE 7 and ASCE 41

◼ ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 allow for inclusion of Inertial SSI effects in all analysis methods

◼ There are similarities to the two standards and differences between them

◼ This scene will focus on the provisions of ASCE 7

74
ASCE 7 Provisions for Inertial SSI

V = V − DV [ASCE 7-22 EQ 19.2-1]

Period Lengthening effect
Cs
DV = (Cs − )W  0.3V [ASCE 7-22 EQ 19.2-2]
BSSI Low ductility systems have
a greater SSI effect
1.4 for R ≤ 3
BSSI = 4  [ASCE 7-22 EQ 19.2-3]
[5.6 − ln(100 b 0 )] 1.7 – R/10 for 3 < R < 6
1.1 for R ≥ 6

where
- V is the base shear adjusted for SSI
- V is the base shear using a fixed-base structure
- Cs is the seismic response coefficient using a fixed-base structure
Foundation Damping effect - Cs is the seismic response coefficient using a flexible-base structure
(e.g. using T in lieu of T in accordance with Section 12.8.2)
- b0 is the effective viscous damping of the soil-structure system
- W is the weight caused by the effective modal mass in the
fundamental mode 75
 Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction

◼ Inertial soil-structure interaction effects include Period Lengthening and Foundation Damping

◼ ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 allow inertial soil-structure interaction effects to be included in any analysis
method

◼ The flexibility of the soil must be included in the analysis model to determine the flexible-base
period

◼ The foundation damping for the structure must be calculated in order to determine the SSI
adjustment to the ELF, MRS or LRHA base shear

◼ The fixed-base period for determining SSI effects must be determined by an analytical model and
is not capped by CuTa

◼ The flexible-base period for determining SSI effects must be determined by a model with
horizontal, vertical and rotational soil stiffness modeled

76
 Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction on Other
Loading Types

◼ Modeling the foundation flexibility and additional damping can have significant impacts on design
of taller buildings for wind effects (longer period of vibration, additional P-Delta effects due to
additional deformation)

◼ Subgrade structures (tunnels, culverts) can have both positive and negative effects of the soil
flexibility

77
Next Scene: Modeling Foundation and Soil
Flexibility

78
79
Methods of SSI in Structural Analysis
81
 Modeling Foundation and Soil Flexibility

◼ Flexibility
of soil in an analytical model is generally modeled using spring
elements connecting the structural elements to a fixed support

◼ The properties of the foundation elements can be modeled using frame, shell or
solid elements

◼ The flexibility of the soil itself is not as well-defined and has greater uncertainty
than the structural elements

◼ ASCE 41-17 Section 8.4 provides guidance in modeling the properties of the soil
in a numerical model

82
 Soil Properties for Determining Flexibility

◼ Foundation geometry (length, width, thickness and depth below grade)

◼ ASCE 7 (Section 12.13.3) and ASCE 41 (Section 8.4.2) require upper and lower bound estimates
of foundation soil flexibility due to the uncertainty of soil properties
◼ Lower-bound stiffness = 0.5 times the expected value
◼ Upper-bound stiffness = 2 times the expected value

◼ Soil shear wave velocity, vs0

◼ Determined based on the average measured value over an effective depth
◼ ASCE 41-17 defines the effective depth as “a depth of about one or two footing widths below the soil
footing interface.” [Section 8.4.2.2]

◼ Poisson’s ratio for the soil, n

◼ Taken as 0.5 for saturated clay and 0.25 for other soils [ASCE 41-17 Section 8.4.2.2]
◼ Taken as 0.3 for Sandy Soils and 0.45 for clayey soils [NIST (2012)]

83
 Soil Properties for Determining Flexibility
(Cont)

◼ Effective soil shear modulus, G

◼ G0 is calculated based on EQ 8-4* [ASCE 41-17] *Note: Equations 8-5 through 8-7 are
also applicable in certain conditions.
 vs 0 2 where
G0 = - is the soil unit weight
g -g is the acceleration of gravity
-vs0 is the shear wave velocity at low
strains at the appropriate depth

◼ G is then determined based on Table 8-2 [ASCE 41-17]

84
Vertical and Rotational Springs

◼ Applies to vertical stiffness of soil that related to

vertical displacement and rotation of a foundation
element for shallow footings

◼ Three methods of modeling are considered:

◼ Method 1 – Rigid Foundation and Flexible Soil
◼ Method 2 – Rigid Foundation and Nonlinear Flexible Soil
◼ Method 3 – Flexible Foundation and Linear Flexible Soil

85
 Method 1 – Rigid Foundation and Flexible Soil

◼ Defines uncoupled point springs for each modeled degree of

freedom

◼ Recommended for foundations that are considered “rigid”

relative to the soil

◼ Calculation of the spring stiffness for each of the 6 DOFs for a

foundation element is provided in Table 8-2

◼ Calculation of an embedment multiplier for each of the 6 DOF

for a foundation element is provided in Table 8-2

86
Method 1 – Rigid Foundation and Flexible Soil

Ensure that units are consistent for the calculations.

Output should be spring stiffness (force/length). 87
Method 1 – Rigid Foundation and Flexible Soil (Cont.)

Ensure that units are consistent for the

calculations. Output should be dimensionless. 88
 Method 2 – Rigid Foundation and Nonlinear
Flexible Soil

◼ Defines distributed springs representing the soil

support as a discretized continuous medium

◼ Recommended for nonlinear analytical procedures

where coupling of axial and overturning is included in
the mathematical model.

◼ Nonlinear soil modeling includes:

◼ Distribution of springs along the length of the foundation
◼ Tension capacity of the soil springs are set to 0 with a no-
tension gap
◼ Strength of the springs is modeled to capture yielding of
the soil under axial and flexural demands

89
Method 2 – Rigid Foundation
and Nonlinear Flexible Soil

◼ To approximately match the

Winkler model to both the vertical
and rotational stiffness of the
footing elastic model, stiffer vertical
springs are placed in the end
regions of the footing

◼ The end region is considered B/6

on both ends of the footing

90
 Method 3 – Flexible Foundation and Linear
Flexible Soil

◼ Defines distributed springs representing the soil

support with a uniform value for the springs along the
length of the footing

◼ Best used when the flexibility of the foundation

elements are modeled explicitly

◼ Equation 8-11 provides a recommended unit subgrade

spring coefficient:
1.3G where
ksv =
B f (1 −n ) -G is the effective shear modulus
-Bf is width of the foundation
-n is Poisson’s ratio

◼ Tension capacity of springs should be set to 0

91
 Method 3 – Flexible Foundation and Linear
Flexible Soil

◼ Subgrade spring coefficient, ksv

◼ Has units of force per length3
◼ Units can be considered as stiffness (force/length) per unit area (1/length2)

◼ Calculation of the spring constant is based on tributary area to the spring Indicates a support
spring location.
L L/4
21 22 23 24 25
Bf/4 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15
Bf
6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5
L Bf L
Frame k2 = k sv B f 4x4 Meshed k12 = k sv
Element 4 Shell Element 4 4 92
 Horizontal Springs

◼ ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 require consideration of all sources of foundation flexibility

◼ Generally, the horizontal flexibility has less effect on the structural response than the vertical but it
must be included

◼ ASCE 41 includes equations to calculate springs that can be utilized for horizontal flexibility as it
did for vertical and rotational

◼ Passive pressure and footing friction must be taken into account as well as the initial stiffness
calculated using ASCE 41

93
 Method 1 – Rigid Foundation Flexible Soil

◼ The equations that were used for Method 1 include a

horizontal spring for the x and y axes

94
 Method 1 – Rigid Foundation Flexible Soil
(Cont.)

◼ The equations to modify the spring properties for

embedment also apply in this case

95
Passive Pressures

◼ The horizontal spring values should be

limited by the development of passive
pressure on the footing edge and the friction
developed along the footing bottom

◼ Calculation of the horizontal stiffness can

also be based on the passive pressure
developed by the footing and the deformation
at which the pressure is developed

◼ Passive pressure can also depend on how

the soil directly around the foundation is
compacted

◼ These can be calculated using a passive

pressure mobilization curve which could
come from a Geotechnical Engineering This mobilization relationship can
report be approximated by this equation: P 
= 0.15 + 2.88( )0.43
Pult H
96
 Frictional or Cohesion Resistance

◼ Frictional Resistance
◼ Depends on the weight of the supported structure and the foundation interface
◼ Depends on the angle of internal friction of the soil
◼ May be taken as ranging from 0.67 to 1 times the tangent of the angle of internal friction (Bowles, 2001)

◼ Cohesive Resistance
◼ May be developed with cohesive soils between the soil and the concrete foundation
◼ May be taken as 0.5 to 0.75 times the internal cohesion value of the soil (Bowles, 2001)

◼ Friction and Cohesive Resistance occurs at very small deformations and develops at a rate
similar to the stiff portion of the passive pressure resistance curve
◼ Resistance due to friction or cohesion can simply be added to the passive pressure for small deformations

97
 Bounding Analyses

◼ Both ASCE 41 and ASCE 7 require

consideration of the uncertainty of the soil
properties in the analysis

◼ In lieu of an explicit uncertainty analysis, upper

and lower bounds can be estimated

◼ Both ASCE 7 (Section 12.13.3) and ASCE 41

(Section 8.4.2) allow the lower bound as a
50% decrease and the upper bound as two
times the calculated value

Lower bound and upper bound

properties in ASCE 41-17 [Fig. 8-1]
98
 Modeling Soil Flexibility for Non-seismic
Design

◼ The basis for many of these methods is seismic design

◼ There is no restriction on using these methods to calculate spring stiffnesses for

other applications
◼ Machine foundation vibration
◼ Buried structures (culverts, vaults, abutments,…)*
◼ Structures subjected to wind loads

◼ Getting input from a Geotechnical Engineer would be of great value in developing the
soil properties used to generate the springs in the analysis model

*Note: AASHTO does have requirements for modeling

soil-structure interaction in buried structures similar to
the bounding requirements in ASCE 7 and ASCE 41.
99
Next Scene: Modeling Basements

100
101
Example Application of SSI in Structural
Analysis
103
 Modeling Basements

◼ Aswith shallow foundations, modeling of basements

can be done in several different ways

◼ NIST (2012) documents surveys of practitioners

regarding different models that were used in
analytical studies

◼ The example buildings NIST (2012) utilized had

instrumentation and recordings from actual events to
assess different modeling strategies.

NIST (2012) and FEMA P-2091 (2020)

104
 Modeling Basements

◼ 5 different modeling cases are

shown here and described in future
slides

◼ These five cases were used in a

study of actual buildings to assess
the accuracy and applicability of the
different methods

NIST (2012) and FEMA P-2091 (2020) 105

 Model 1 – No SSI Effects

◼ Building is assumed fixed at the ground level

◼ No SSI effects are included in the model

◼ Reactions calculated at the base of the model and applied

to the foundation in a separate model

◼ This model would not be appropriate for a model with

“back-stay” effects

106
 Model 2 – Lateral Soil Pressure Neglected

◼ Building is assumed fixed at the basement level

◼ Basement structure is explicitly modeled

◼ Lateral soil pressure on the basement walls is neglected

in the model

◼ It is argued that the deformation needed to develop

passive pressure is large enough that it can be
conservatively ignored

◼ “Back-stay” effect could be considered only for the

diaphragm effect (not the additional soil flexibility)

◼ One variation of this model includes vertical springs under

the foundation

107
 Model 3 – Soil Springs

◼ Horizontal springs are used to capture the effect of the

surrounding soil

◼ There are two general variations of this model, one with

the vertical springs (shown in the figure) and the other with
the base fixed vertically

◼ “Back-stay” effect including the soil flexibility could be

modeled using this method

◼ The model with the horizontal and vertical springs is used

more commonly

◼ This modeling approach is most commonly used in

pushover analyses

108
 Model 4 – The Bathtub

◼ Horizontal and vertical springs are attached to the Model 4

basement and rigid walls (the bathtub)

◼ The ground motion is applied to the “bathtub” so the

ends of the horizontal springs move with the input
motion

◼ “Back-stay” effect including the soil flexibility could

be modeled using this method

◼ This modeling approach is rarely used but is

Model 4
recommended in Guidelines for Performance-Based (Simplified)
Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (PEER, 2010)

109
 Full Substructure Model

◼ Comprehensive modeling approach in which springs and

dashpots are used to address:
◼ Soil damping variation
◼ Foundation rotation
◼ Multi-support excitation (input varies over the height of the
basement wall)

◼ This model is not used in practice

◼ In the assessment of Models 1-4, this was used as the

baseline for comparison

110
 Case Study Buildings

◼ Two existing instrumented buildings that

had experienced earthquakes were
utilized in the study of analysis methods
including SSI [NIST(2012)]

◼ Details on the buildings are in Chapter 7

of NIST (2012).

◼ The 13-story Sherman Oaks building has

a two level basement

111
Development of Soil Springs

◼ The following steps were utilized to develop the foundation model

◼ Determination of average effective profile velocity for shallow foundations considering foundation
dimensions, overburden pressure and nonlinear effects
◼ Determination of the structure-to-soil stiffness ratio to estimate impact of SSI
◼ Calculation of shallow foundation horizontal stiffness and damping coefficients, including contributions
from base slab friction and passive pressure against basement walls
◼ Calculation of vertical stiffness and damping coefficients
for springs under the base slab
◼ Contribution of pile groups to the vertical and lateral stiffness
of the foundation
◼ Distribution of shallow foundation springs and dashpots to
the nodes in the analytical model
◼ Calculation of limiting spring forces (i.e. capacities)

112
Distribution of Vertical Springs and Dashpots

113
Distribution of Springs and Dashpots

Lateral stiffness of pile groups

are also included in the
modelling of the foundation.

114
 Recommendations from Analysis Results

◼ Model 1 – Results indicated that ignoring the subgrade

levels significantly alters the period of vibration.
Differences in story drifts, story shears, and peak floor
accelerations were relatively large (up to 50%) in some
cases.

◼ Model 2 – Results showed that modeling the

subterranean levels (even while ignoring the horizontal
effects of surrounding soil) can provide a good response
for some response quantities.
◼ Good agreement was observed for:
◼ Vibration periods
◼ Displacement histories NIST (2012) and FEMA P-2091 (2020)
◼ Reasonable agreement was observed for:
◼ Maximum displacements
◼ Drift ratios 115
 Recommendations from Analysis Results

◼ Model 3 – Results indicate the least agreement with

the baseline model. Large differences occurred in all
response quantities. This method is not
recommended.

◼ Model 4 – Results showed that the bathtub model

introduces negligible differences in displacement
response over the height of the structure. Story drift
and story shear force profiles also had negligible
differences from the baseline. This method is
recommended.

NIST (2012) and FEMA P-2091 (2020)

116
 Recommended Modeling Process

◼ Model 1 and Model 2 lead to comparable or slightly conservative results as compared to the
baseline model for design of a moment frame superstructure. These represent a reasonable and
practical design alternative.

◼ For shear wall superstructures, Model 4 provides more consistent results when compared to the
Baseline Model. Model 2 typically conservatively bounds the Baseline Model results so can be a
reasonable and practical design alternative.

◼ For structures where the “Back-stay” effect should be modeled, Method 2 or Method 4 is
recommended. Method 2 would be similar to what was done in Week 5. Method 4 would add the
effect of the soil flexibility to the analysis.

◼ The most important recommendation for modeling soil-structure interaction is to consult with a
Geotechnical Engineer to ensure the soil properties and modeling process are consistent with the
site conditions.
117
Next Scene: Week 6 Summary

118
119
Conclusion
121
1
 Recap of Week 6

◼ What is Soil-Structure Interaction?

◼ Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on Building Structures
◼ Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction
◼ Kinematic Soil Structure Interaction
◼ Modeling of Foundations and Basements

122
 References

◼ Bowles, J.E. (2001). Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,
New York.

◼ FEMA (2005). Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, FEMA 440,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 2005.

◼ FEMA (2020). A Practical Guide to Soil-Structure Interaction, FEMA P-2091. Federal

Emergency Management Agency, December 2020.

◼ NIST (2012). Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures. National Institute of Standards
and Technology, NIST GCR 12-91, September 2012.

◼ Stewart, J.P., G.L. Fenves, and R.B. Seed (1996). Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings
II: Empirical Findings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125,
pp. 38-48.

123
 What’s coming in Week 7?

◼ Importance of Validating Computed Response

◼ Approximate Analysis of Indeterminate Structures

◼ Upper and Lower Bound Modeling

◼ Checking Complex Analysis Results with Approximate Calculations

124
125