IMPACT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON MOMENT RESISTANT FRAMES

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Structures are generally assumed to be fixed at their bases in the process of analysis and
design . But the consideration of the actual support flexibility reduces the overall stiffness of
structure and increases the period of system, which is a critical parameter in design for dynamic
loads.
Thus the extent of fixity offered by soil at the base of structure also depends upon the
load that is transmitted by structure to soil. Such an interdependent between soil structure
regulating the overall response is termed as soil structure interaction,
The structural materials viz. concrete and steel, the properties of which are predictable to
an acceptable degree of accuracy, the factor of safety is of lesser magnitude. The soil being a
natural material, in this case the properties can vary and is highly unpredictable, it is a general
practice to assign large factors of safety to soil, when compared to that of the superstructure.
In such a situation, the soil stresses do not cross the elastic range except probably in the
small overstressed zones. Hence in the present analysis the soil system is assumed to be elastic.
Within the elastic properties of the soil has been variously modeled, following are the four most
commonly adopted models are:
1. Winkler method
2. Half space method
3. Two parameter model
4. Layered continuum

Of these, the layered continuum model establishes the exact distribution of stresses and
strains but is difficult to implement and close form solutions are available only for few simple
cases. As a result the first two models namely Winkler springs and half space continua are
widely used because of their simplicity and their abilities to analyze realistic geometries.
It is important to understand underlying impact of foundations treated as fixed, but we
know in reality they rest on elastic media soil, Understanding the variation in forces in a frame
subjected to a quasistatic load .This can be done by considering the foundation as fixed as first
case. Second case being treating foundation as partially fixed by replacing it with springs, whose
stiffness is calculated by Winklers method
2.0 BEARING CAPACITY FROM SPT and SOIL PROPERTIES
The SPT is widely used to obtain the bearing capacity of soils directly. One of the earliest
published relationships was that of Terzaghi and Peck (1967). This has been widely used, but an
accumulation of field observations has shown these curves to be overly conservative. Meyerhof
(1956, 1974) published equations for computing the allowable bearing capacity for a 25-mm
settlement. These could be used to produce curves similar to those of Terzaghi and Peck and thus
were also very conservative. Considering the accumulation of field observations and the stated
opinions of the authors and others, this author adjusted the Meyerhof equations for an
approximate 50 percent increase in allowable bearing capacity to obtain the following:

2.10

2.11
Where qa = allowable bearing pressure for 0 = 25-mm or 1-inch. settlement, kPa or ksf
Kd = 1 + 0.33D/B < 1.33 [as suggested by Meyerhof (1965)

Where F is given by]

Table 1 Values of F

These equations have been in existence for quite some time and are based primarily on N values
from the early 1960s back and, thus, Er is likely on the order of 50 to 55 and not 70+ Since lower
Er produces higher blow counts N if the proceeding equations are standardized to N'7Q, we must
use revised values for factors F\ and F2 as shown in the table of F factors. Summarizing, use the
left values under N55 and the given F factors, or standardize N to N70 and use the right columns of
F factors in Eqn. (2 1), and (2-2). Figure 4-7 is a plot of Eqn. (2-1) and (2.2) based on = N55.
Table 1 Properties of soil
2
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
 N value Mass density() Shear modulous poisson's
Type of soil considered KN/m^3 G=13333.33*(N^0.8) ratio
Soft Rock 40 21 255027.2695 0.5
Medium dry
sand 24 18.5 169475.7722 0.5

Table 2 Calculation of Bearing capacity

Safe bearing
capacity
(kN/m2)
Type of N value 34.63 (N- Compressive
soil considered B 3)[(B+0.3)2B]^2 Load

Soft Rock 40 2 423.63 1694.53

Medium
dry sand 24 2 240.44 961.76

Table 3 Poissons ratio of Soil

3.0 Numerical methods in soil structure interaction

3
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
A spatial structure is considered resting on soil through a strip, a grid, or a mat foundation.
Whatever the case, the foundation model is discretized in a manner that exhibits a number of N
nodes. These nodes refer also to the soil surface which, under the action of a certain loading on
the structure considered, exhibits a certain settlement distribution. The soil itself is assumed as an
elastic half space consisting of a finite number of horizontal layers of given thickness, each with
its own elastic characteristics. The structure considered is assumed to be simply supported on all
the aforementioned N contact nodes Fig. 1. In this case, one could derive the state-of-stress of
the real structure resting on the soil surface, as that one which results from the simply supported
dmodel loaded accordingly, and subjected to those support displacements which are identical to
the corresponding real settlements of the structure. Of course, as the real foundation settlements
are enforced only at the selected contact nodes, a certain incompatibility exists between
foundation and soil surface displacement at all the other points of the interface. This may be
accounted for by increasing the number of the contact nodes. However, such an increase above a
certain limit, has no practical importance at all. The problem now consists in finding those
support displacements which together with the existing loading lead to such reaction forces that,
if applied in opposite sense on the half space soil surface, yield identical settlements with the
support displacements considered. The reaction forces are considered acting on the soil surface
through the corresponding tributary areas of the respective nodes, according to the adopted finite
element discretization of the foundation elements. The physical assumption made in this way
suggests that every node of the foundation interface experiences a compression stress, so that
there is always a contact between the structure and the soil.

3.1 Behavior of Elastic-Layered Half space [1]

The settlement of a point lying on the surface of an elastic, isotropic, and homogeneous half
space having coordinates (x,y) due to a concentrated load P acting at the origin of the coordinate
axes, i.e., at a distance r= sqrt(x^2+y^2) from the point considered, is according to the well-
known classical Boussinesqs solution. (Timoshenko and Goodlier 1934, )

-----------------------------------------------eqn 3.1
Where ES and are modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio of elastic halfspace, respectively.
On the basis of this result, Steinbrenner (1934) has developed a formula which allows the
calculation of the settlement of any corner of a rectangular region with sides (2a) and (2b) loaded
by a uniform pressure p and lying over a compressible isotropic and homogeneous elastic layer
of thickness z Fig. 2.
This Formula can be written in the following form:

--------------------------------------------------------------------eqn3.2
Where

4
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
 Here after the elastic index of the layer and

--------------------------------eqn 3.3
Where

The above formulation gives for large values of z identical results with those obtained from the
Boussinesqs solution, in the way the latter was treated in Stavridis (1997) for an elastic half
space of unlimited depth. The soil half space is now considered as consisting of a finite number k
of horizontal layers according each soil layer. It is characterized through the distance z of its
lower boundary from the soil surface and its elastic index Yi . The settlement of a point S on its
surface because of the uniform loading of the rectangular region
The stiffness of soil is modeled as springs between soil and foundation. The spring constants are
determined from elastic half space solution.
The function of foundation media is to resist the forces applied to it by base of the buildings.
During the Earth quake a rigid base may be subjected to six degree of freedom, and the six
corresponding resultant forces. Hence the structural behavior of the elastic half space can be
represented by force displacement relations for this degree of freedom. And hence can be
replaced by springs having stiffness given in below table

5
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
Figure 1 Fictitious supports of a) 2d frame b) 3d frame

In Winklers model, the soil mass is represented by series of independent springs. Hence the
shear resistance of soil is not taken into account and the reaction force acting on foundation at
any point is directly proportional to the foundation settlement relation is given by
Pi=Ks*WI..eqn a
Where Pi=Pressure at any point and
WI is settlement at at that point
Ks= Modulus of sub grade reaction

3.2 Numerical Procedure

According to the preceding analysis, in order to find the state of stress of any arbitrary structure
founded on a horizontally layered elastic soil and subjected to a certain loading, the following
steps have to be performed. To that purpose, a computer program has been appropriately written
on the basis of the relations established previously, under the condition that a finite element
program is generally available
1. Finite discretization of the structure considered, whereby an orthogonal layout for the
foundation element nodes should be used;

6
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
2. Reference of the foundation meshing to the soil surface through the respective N nodes and
determination of the soil stiffness matrix Ksoil, through consecutive loading of the surface
3. Determination of the N reaction forces of the simply supported model under the given
loading and consequent assembly of the column matrix R0;
4. Through consecutive setting of unit support settlement to each one of the N points of
support, determination of 4th respective reaction forces of the simply supported model and
assembly of the support stiffness matrix Ksup
5. Determination of the displacements D of the foundation nodes through
6. Determination of the state of stress in the simply supported model under the external loading
and the imposing of the calculated support settlements D;
7. Determination of the soil pressures through application of eqn a

Table 4 Spring Constants obtained from ATC-40

Table 5 Stiffness parameters calculated from ATC-40

HARD
Equivalent SOIL Medium soil
Length Breadth spring(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)l
2 1.5 Kx 1028572.73 283830.4609
2 1.5 Ky 1069092.375 295011.692
2 1.5 Kz 1597388.34 440792.8148
2 1.5 Krx 784793.1328 216560.4727
2 1.5 Kry 1269193.072 350228.6654

7
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
Table 6 MODEL 1

Details Without SSI With SSI

Typical
plan

Model 1
G+6
Soft Rock
Ht
=22.4mts
Typical
storey
height 3mts
The soil is replaced by springs whose stiffness is
given by table

8
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
Table 7 MODEL 2

Details Without SSI With SSI

Model 1
G+4
Medium
Sand
Ht
=14..4mts
Typical
storey
height 3mts

9
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
4 Method of Analysis
Gravity load analysis and lateral load analysis as per the seismic code IS 1893-2002 (part-1) for
structure on different soil base are carried out and an effort is made to the seismic vulnerability
of it. The analysis of building is performed in STAAD, in the analysis section density, modulus
of elasticity; poisons ratio should be specified for each material. Following Analysis Have been
performed
1. Equivalent Static Method
The simple static method is method of calculation of earthquake forces by using following
equation.

VB= AhW

VB = Total base shear

W= Total seismic weight of the structure

z= Zone Factor
I = Importance Factor
Sa /g=Value of spectral acceleration co-efficient
This method is based on the fundamental natural period of the model based on the approximate
formulae in the code. Response
2. Response Spectrum
Response spectrum is based on the first few natural periods and mode shapes obtained from a
free vibration analysis of the model. The response spectrum graph used to assess spectral
acceleration is same as that used in the Equivalent static method. Response of the individual
modes are combined to obtain peak response using the peak response using modal combination
rules as such as CQC, ABSSUM or SRSS

Input design data

1. Material properties:
i. Young modulus of elasticity E = 2500 KN/m^2
ii. Density of Reinforced concrete = 25 kn/m^3
1 . Dead load

10
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
 i. Floor finishes =1.0 kN m^2
ii. Roof Finishes =2.0 KN/ m^2
iii. Slab = 3.0 kN/m^2
2 . Live Load
i. Floor =5kN m^2
ii. Roof =3.0 KN/ m^2
3 . Member properties
i. Column size = 0.3x0.6
ii. Beam size = 0.23x0.45
4 EARTHQUAKE LOAD : As per IS1893(part1)
5 Type of soil : Type 2, medium as per IS1893
6 Typical storey height :3.2
7 Earthquake live load : As per 7.31-50% of live load (floor)
8 Seismic zone : 3
9 Type of use : public

5.0 Results and Discussions

The aim of the study is to understand what the variation in various parameters. The objective is
understand what is the impact of the SSI taking to account the stresses by using SBC with
permissible 25mm settlement calculated using SPT values (Terazaghi method) and using again
spt values to calculate stiffness parameters
1. Results on Fundamental Natural Period
WITH SSI Without SSI
SOIL Frequency period Frequency period Variation Variation
Soft rock 0.65 1.538 0.668 1.496 2.694611 -2.80749
Medium
sand 1.053 0.95 1.061 0.943 0.754006 -0.74231

2. Variation in maximum lateral displacement (mm)

Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
48.39 54.966 38.5 57 48.39 54.966
rock
Medium
20.694. 45.417 22.205 47.104 20.694 45.417
sand

11
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
Variation and impact on Moments in beams (MZ)
3. Top most beam (end bay in X direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
26.235 27.616 29.87 32.88 13.86 -19.06
rock
Medium
41.879 46.113 31.115 40.013 -25.7 13.23
sand
4. Top most beam (Z direction)
Without SSI (kNm) With SSI(kNm) Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
83.362 64.079 97.7 80.3 17.2 -25.31
rock
Medium
117.301 93.585 110.741 105.176 -5.59 -12.39
sand
5. Centre Most beam ( X direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
88.693 90.793 78.5128 95.617 -11.48 -5.31
rock
Medium
49.283 134.425 54.257 96.122 10.09 28.49
sand
6. Centre Most beam ( Z direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
168.898 94.858 159.821 113.987 -5.37 -20.17
rock
Medium
105.116 95.241 141.666 117.214 34.77 -23.07
sand
7. bottom Most beam ( X direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
123.36 98.976 95.753 152.975 -22.38 -54.56
rock
Medium
83.435 91.972 76.19 150.788 -8.68 -63.95
sand

12
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
 8. Bottom Most beam ( Z direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
173.2 98.978 155.811 115.267 -10.04 -16.46
rock
Medium
143.732 99.814 136.267 117.85 -5.19 -18.07
sand
9. Impact on axial force
10. Top most corner column (end bay in X direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
141.1 113.726 157.459 121.877 11.59 -7.17
rock
Medium
179.551 158.356 192.65 164.26 7.3 -3.73
sand
11. Top most corner Column (mid bay Z direction)
Without SSI (kN/m) With SSI(kN/m) Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
205.265 170.479 200.046 158.875 -2.54 6.81
rock
Medium
264.881 235.901 257.344 217.52 -2.85 7.79
sand
12. Centre Most Column ( X direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
886.119 679.169 884.45 699.665 -0.19 -3.02
rock
Medium
656.66 517.71 671.42 540 2.25 -4.31
sand
13. Centre Most Column ( Z direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
1091.89 928.76 929.336 858.768 -14.89 7.54
rock
Medium
775.043 770.47 753.439 699 -2.79 9.28
sand

13
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
 14. bottom Most corner column ( X direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
1331.9 1317.14 1421.89 1341.04 6.76 -1.81
rock
Medium
931.805 968.219 1009.59 1000.5 8.35 -3.33
sand
15. Bottom Most column ( MID Z direction)
Without SSI With SSI Variation
Medium Equivalent Response Equivalent Response Equivalent Response
sand Static Spectrum Static Spectrum Static Spectrum
Soft
1750.72 1790.73 1704.02 1649.7 -2.67 7.88
rock
Medium
1307.5 1362.12 1276.86 1230.27 -2.34 9.68
sand
16. Maximum displacement at the spring (foundation)

Permissible With SSI

Deformation Equivalent Response
Medium sand Static Spectrum
25 21.526 18.328
Soft rock
25 20 18.1
Medium sand

*-variation indicates increase in ssi values

Figure 2 showing the location at which forces in the structure are taken

14
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
6.0 Summary and conclusions
Spread footings are normally used under individual columns of buildings and bridge
piers. They are economical to use and are applicable for any soil conditions where the
bearing capacity for the applied loads is adequate. Structural design codes and
specifications allow a linear soil pressure distribution to be assumed for the design of
spread footings. This approach is valid for infinitely rigid footings.
Using finite element analysis software like STAAD and using soil interaction method like
Elastic half space we can analyze when footing is flexible and find the corresponding
effects on the footing
There is upto 50% increase in maximum lateral displacement when SSI is considered.
There is lengthening affect on time period marginally upto 2%.
It is observed that the bending moments in the lesser stiffened side there is observed to
increase upto 63% compared to normal analysis
The impact on the axial loads in the column is negligible

7.0 Bibliography

1. Anil.K.Chopra. Dynamics of structures 4th Edition

2. IS 1893-2002: Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake resistance design structure
part-I General provision and buildings (Fifth Edition) Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, and June 2002.
3. J E Bowles, Foundation analysis and design, 5th edition, Civil Engineering Series,
McGraw- Hill International Editions, New York
4. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shirkhande Earthquake resistant design of structures
5. V.N.S Murthy, Soil mechanics and foundation Engineering, Dhanpat Rai, New Delhi,
India 1974
6. ATC-40
7. Staad reference manual-2007
8. Dr S S Bhavikatti Advanced design of reinforced concrete structures

8.0 References
1. L. T. Stavridis Simplified Analysis of Layered Soil-Structure Interaction Volume 128
pp 224-230
2. Vijay Pawar Dynamic Soil Structure Analysis of Asymmetrical RC Building mtech
dissertation of KLECET Belgaum 2008

15
Civil engineering department, BVBCET
 3. Sami W. Tabsh and Abdul Raouf Al-Shawaz Effect of spread footing flexibility on
structural response practice periodical on structural design and construction asce /
may 2005
4. Ingle and Chore Soil-structure interaction analyses of building frames: an overview
Journal of structural engineering 2008 vol 34 No.5 January 2008 pp 360-368
5. V S Chandrasekhar Numerical and centrifuge modeling Indian Geotechnical,31 (1,)
2001
6. George Gazetas Formulas and charts for impedances of surface end embedded
foundation Jl of Geotechnical Engg ASCE September 1991 pp 1363-1381

16
Civil engineering department, BVBCET