See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232703214

A simplified method to determine seismic

responses of reinforced concrete moment
resisting building frames under...

Article in Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering · November 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.008

CITATIONS READS

47 544

2 authors:

Harry Far Ali Massumi

University of Technology Sydney Kharazmi University
46 PUBLICATIONS 280 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 189 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Building Systems for Mass Construction View project

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges of Iran Railroad Adminstration View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harry Far on 15 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced

concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of
soil–structure interaction
Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar, Ali Massumi n
Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: As the Iranian seismic code does not address the soil–structure interaction (SSI) explicitly, the effects of
Received 17 September 2009 SSI on RC-MRFs are studied using the direct method. Four types of structures on three types of soils,
Received in revised form with and without the soil interaction, are modeled and subjected to different earthquake records. The
18 May 2010
results led to a criterion indicating that considering SSI in seismic design, for buildings higher than three
Accepted 24 May 2010
and seven stories on soil with Vs o 175 m/s and 175 o Vs o375 m/s, respectively, is essential. A
simplified procedure has been presented, on the basis that lateral displacement increments could be
applied to the fixed-base models using simple factors.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in damping, increase of the lateral displacements of the structure

The estimation of earthquake motions at the site of a structure
is the most important phase of seismic design as well as retrofit of
a structure. In classical methods used in structural structural
analysis, it is assumed that, the motion in the foundation level of
structure is equal to ground free field motion. This assumption is
correct only for the structures resting on rock or very stiff soils.
For the structures constructed on soft soils, foundation motion is
usually different from the free field motion and a rocking
component caused by the support flexibility on horizontal motion
of foundation has been added.
Traditionally, in analysis of the rigid base structures, input
motion at the base of the structure is taken as equal to the free
field ground motion. In the case of a flexible-base structure, in
addition to the added rocking component to the horizontal
motion of the structure, a part of the structure’s vibrating energy
will transmit to the soil layer and can be dissipated due to
radiation damping resulting from the wave propagation and
hysteresis damping of the soil materials. However, in classical
methods, for the rigid base structures, this energy dissipation is
not considered [1].
Therefore, soil structure interactions can be summarized as
follows: reduction of the natural frequency of the system, increase
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Moallem
University, Tehran 15614, Iran. Tel.: +98 21 8883 0891; fax: + 98 21 8832 9213.
E-mail address: massumi@tmu.ac.ir (A. Massumi).
and change in the base shear depending on the frequency content
of the input motion and dynamic characteristics of soil and
structure [2,3].
The 1985 Mexico City and many recent earthquakes, clearly
illustrate the importance of local soil properties on the earthquake
response of structures. These earthquakes demonstrated that the
rock motions could be amplified at the base of a structure by over a
factor of five [4]. Therefore, there is a strong engineering motivation
for a site dependent dynamic response analysis for many founda-
tions in order to determine the free-field earthquake motions.
Determination of a realistic site-dependent free field surface motion
at the base of a structure can be the most important step in the
earthquake resistant design of any structure.
2. Soil–structure system
The most common soil–structure interaction (SSI) approach, used
for three dimensional soil–structure systems, is based on the ‘‘added
motion’’ formulation [5]. This formulation is mathematically simple,
theoretically correct, and is easy to automate and use within a
general linear structural analysis program. In addition, the formula-
tion is valid for free-field motions caused by earthquake waves
generated from all sources. The method requires that the free-field
motions at the base of the structure be calculated prior to the soil–
structure interactive analysis. In order to develop the fundamental
SSI dynamic equilibrium equations consider the three dimensional
soil–structure system shown in Fig. 1.

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.008
1260 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267
Three dimensional complete soil–structure system with added
damping are of the following form for dynamic equilibrium and
for a lumped mass system:
M u€ þC u_ þKu ¼ mx v€ x ðtÞmy v€ y ðtÞmz v€ z ðtÞ
where M¼mass matrix of the soil–structure model; C ¼damping
matrix of the soil–structure model; K¼ stiffness matrix of the
soil–structure model; u ¼added relative displacement for the
soil–structure system; mx ¼ mass in X direction for added
structure only; my ¼ mass in Y direction for added structure only;
mz ¼mass in Z direction for added structure only; v€ x ðtÞ ¼free-field
component of the acceleration in X direction if the structure is not
present; v€ y ðtÞ¼ free-field component of the acceleration in Y
direction if the structure is not present; v€ z ðtÞ ¼free-field compo-
nent of the acceleration in Z direction if the structure is not
present.
Most structural analysis computer programs automatically
apply the seismic loading to all mass degrees-of-freedom within
the computer model and cannot solve the SSI problem. This lack
of capability has motivated the development of the massless
foundation model. This allows the correct seismic forces to be
applied to the structure; however, inertial forces within the
foundation material are neglected. The results from a massless
foundation analysis converge as the size of the foundation model
is increased. However, the converged solutions may have
avoidable errors in the mode shapes, frequencies and response
of the system. To activate the soil–structure interaction within a
computer program it is necessary only to identify the foundation
mass in order that the loading is not applied to that part of the
Added Structure (s)
Common Nodes (c)
Soil Foundation System (f)
U=v+u
U = Absolute Displacements
v = Free Field Displacements
u = Added Displacements
u=0
Fig. 1. Soil–structure interaction model.
Fig. 2. Finite element modeling of soil with primary boundaries.
structure. The program then has the required information to form
both the total mass and the mass of the added structure.
The SAP2000 program has this option and is capable of solving
the SSI problem correctly [4]. Because of this ability, SAP2000,
ð1Þ
Version 10, which is a very powerful software in solving structural
problems, has been used for dynamic soil–structure interaction
analysis.
3. Modeling of infinite soil media using direct method
Modeling of infinite soil media in soil–structure interaction
plays a vital role. In the direct method of interaction analysis
between soil and structure, the soil is modeled by the finite
element method and the boundary conditions are implemented
around the soil body. In this method, in addition to considering
the geometrical damping, foundation burying and soil strata in
horizontal and vertical directions may easily be modeled in the
analysis [6]. In this method there is a boundary limit obligation;
thus, in order to consider the effect of energy distribution and its
simulation, in direction of finite element boundaries, the primary
boundaries are considered instead, in this research. These types of
boundaries do not absorb energy and for reduction of reflexive
wave’s effects, the distance between the structure and the
boundaries must be increased. Ghosh and Wilson [7] in their
research came to the conclusion that if the distance of the
structure center to the soil finite element model boundaries are
within 3–4 times of the foundation radius in horizontal direction
and 2–3 times of the foundation radius in the vertical direction,
the effects of the reflexive waves are negligible [7]. It is
noteworthy to state that for such boundaries, modeling is often
extended to the top of bed rock in the vertical direction.
Three dimensional quadrilateral elements (solid elements)
with 4 m width, equal to the distance between frames in plan,
have been used for finite element modeling of soil, and bending
elements (frame elements) have been utilized for modeling the
structural elements.
Horizontal distances between soil boundaries and center of
structures have been assumed to be 45 m from each side and
vertical distance of soil boundaries have been extended to the bed
rock. Bed rock depth has been assumed to be 30 m for all
considered soil types. Soil boundary limit conditions have also
been postulated as zero displacement (Fig. 2).
3.1. Geotechnical and structural characteristics of the models
In this research, four structural models, consisting of 3, 5, 7 and
10 story models, representing the conventional types of buildings
in a relatively high risk earthquake prone zone and as per
specifications mentioned in Table 1 have been chosen.
In the selection of the frames’ span width, it has been tried to
make this width to be conforming to architectural norms and
constructional practices of the conventional buildings in mega
 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267 1261

cities. The above mentioned frames, as fixed-base structures, have type of soil for all considered soil types have been extracted from
been modeled by SAP2000 software. The models were then curves represented by Seed and Idriss [13] and applied to the
loaded vertically (dead and live loads) and laterally (seismic models.
loads) according to the Iranian National Building Code (Part 6) [8]
and Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of
Buildings (Standard no. 2800-05), respectively [9].
Seismic analyses of structures for design, have been done using 4. Dynamic analysis of soil–structure interaction
dynamic spectral (modal) analysis method according to standard
design spectra (Fig. 3) of the Iranian Standard no. 2800-05 for Four different ground acceleration records have been used for
each type of soil (i.e. II, III and IV), implementing response dynamic analysis of the systems. Table 3 and Fig. 4 provide some
modification factor (behavior factor) R¼10 on ductile reinforced relevant information for the records. In addition, response spectra
concrete moment-resisting frames (RC-MRF) and base acceleration of these earthquake records are shown in Fig. 5. The reason
ratio A¼0.35 for a relatively high risk zone. Eventually, after behind selecting Abbar, Naghan and Rudbar records is because of
seismic analyses, structural sections were designed according to high rigidity of soil in these regions that complies with the rigidity
the Iranian Concrete Code (ABA) [10]. of soil type I of the Iranian Standard no. 2800-05 [9]. Thus, the
Three types of soil representing types II, III and IV according to recorded accelerations are equivalent to bed rock record.
classification of the Iranian Standard no. 2800-05 [9] have been Earthquake records have been applied to systems in two
selected in this research. Since in the frame structures for soils different ways. In case of modeling soil and structures together in
with shear wave velocity less than 600 m/s the effect of soil– a direct method (flexible base), the earthquake records have been
structure interaction is considerable [11], examination is carried applied to the combination of soil and structure directly. In case of
out in this research only on those soil types in this category. modeling the structures as fixed base (without soil), the earth-
Characteristics of the utilized soils are shown in Table 2 and have quake records have been separately scaled according to the
been extracted from the actual geotechnical studies of various Iranian Standard no. 2800-05 [9] for each type of soil (i.e. II, III and
projects [12]. Therefore, they have priority over the assumed IV) and applied to the models.
parameters, which may not be completely conforming to reality.
The shear wave velocities mentioned in Table 2 are obtained Table 2
from down hole tests, which is a low strain in-situ test. This test Geotechnical characteristics of the utilized soils.
generates a shear strain of about 10  4% where the resulting shear
modulus is called Gmax. In the event of a great earthquake, the Soil Shear Elastic Shear module r (kg s2/m4) Poisson’s
type wave module Gmax (kg/cm2) ratio
shear strain value would be about 10  1 [2]; thus, the shear strain velocity E (kg/cm2)
modulus, called G0 and used for modeling of all types of soils, was Vs (m/s)
extracted from the Seed and Idriss [13] studies. In addition, the
internal soil damping, which is a function of strain amplitude and II 600 16400 6480 180 0.28
III 320 4945 1808 175 0.39
IV 150 935 335 150 0.40
Table 1
Frames configuration.

Reference name Number of Number of Story Bay width Total Table 3

(code) stories bays height (m) width Earthquake ground motions used in analyses.
(m) (m)
Earthquake Station Year PGA (g)
S3 3 2 3.00 4.00 8.00
S5-a 5 2 3.00 4.00 8.00 Abbar Iran 1990 0.526
S5-b 5 3 3.00 4.00 12.00 El Centro USA 1940 0.319
S7 7 3 3.00 4.00 12.00 Naghan Iran 1977 0.350
S10 10 3 3.00 4.00 12.00 Rudbar Iran 1991 0.286

3.00
2.75
Building Response Factor (B)

2.50 Soil Type II

2.25 Soil Type III
2.00 Soil Type IV
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Structural Period in Second (T)

Fig. 3. Building response factor for zones of ‘‘very high’’ and ‘‘high’’ levels of seismicity and different subsoil classes [9].
1262 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267

Abbar EQ. considered soil types. The time history analyses are carried out for
6 the systems in two different ways: (i) as fixed-base columns on
Acceleration, m/s2

5.16 m/s 2 = 0.526g rigid ground (Fig. 6) and (ii) by modeling frames with subsoil
3
(Fig. 7) using direct method of soil–structure interaction analysis
0 called flexible base.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Comparing the outputs, obtained from each model under the
-3 influence of four accelerograms in two mentioned conditions, it
was found that judgment made on the effect of soil–structure
-6
interaction, based on one single accelerogram would not be
adequate. In order to reach an acceptable and comprehensive
El Centro EQ. criterion for analysis of soil–structure interaction effects on
4
Acceleration, m/s2

seismic behavior of considered models, it is suggested to use

2 average results obtained from models under the influence of four

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2

-4 3.13 m/s 2 = 0.319g

Naghan EQ.
4
Acceleration, m/s2

3.43 m/s 2 = 0.350g

2

0
0 5 10 15 20
-2

-4

Rudbar EQ.
4
Acceleration, m/s2

0
0 5 10 15 20
-2
2.81 m/s 2 = 0.286g
-4

Fig. 4. Accelerograms of earthquakes used in time-history analyses.

5
Fig. 6. Fixed-base models.
Abbar
4 El Centro
Rudbar
Naghan
3
Sa (g)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (sec)

Fig. 5. Scaled response spectra of used acceleration records.

As the objective of this research is to study soil–structure

interaction effects on seismic behavior of ductile reinforced
concrete structures, loaded and designed according to the Iranian
Building Codes; therefore, considered structural models have
been analyzed (linear elastic time history analysis) under Abbar,
El Centro, Naghan and Rudbar ground motion records, for all three Fig. 7. Modeling of frames with soil in direct method (flexible-base).
 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267 1263

accelerograms of El Centro, Abbar, Naghan and Rudbar earth-
quakes in two mentioned conditions (fixed-base and flexible
base).
For this purpose, all the structural models including S3, S5-a,
S5-b, S7 and S10 have been modeled on soil types II, III and IV,
once with soil as flexible base, then considered as fixed base
structures (without soil). The ratio of story shear, story deflection
and inter-story drift in two mentioned conditions have been
calculated separately for each earthquake; then, all obtained
ratios have been averaged.
5. Results and discussions
Now it is possible to compare and analyze the effect of soil–
structure interaction in each model on soil types II, III, IV
comprehensively, using the average ratio of story shear, story
deflection and inter-story drift in flexible-base and fixed-base
conditions. These average values are shown in Figs. 8–10.
According to the results shown in Fig. 8, average ratios of story
shear of flexible-base to that of fixed-base in all models are less
than one; therefore, story shear of structures modeled with soil as

1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60
V~/V

V~/V
0.40 0.40
Soil Type II Soil Type II
Soil Type III Soil Type III
0.20 Soil Type IV 0.20 Soil Type IV

0.00 0.00
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
No. of Stories No. of Stories

1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60
V~/V

V~/V

0.40 0.40
Soil Type II Soil Type II
Soil Type III Soil Type III
0.20 Soil Type IV 0.20 Soil Type IV

0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. of Stories No. of Stories

1.00

0.80

0.60
V~/V

0.40
Soil Type II
Soil Type III
0.20 Soil Type IV

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No. of Stories

Fig. 8. Average ratio of story shear of flexible-base to fixed-base on soil types II, III and IV. (a) Model S3, (b) Model S5-a, (c) Model S5-b, (d) Model S7 and (e) Model S10.
1264 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267

1.00 1.50
Soil Type II
Soil Type III
Soil Type IV 1.25
0.75
1.00

0.50 0.75
Soil Type II
0.50 Soil Type III
Soil Type IV
0.25
0.25

0.00 0.00
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
No. of Stories No. of Stories

1.50 3.00
Soil Type II
2.75
Soil Type III
1.25 2.50 Soil Type IV
2.25
1.00 2.00
1.75
0.75 1.50
Soil Type II 1.25
0.50 Soil Type III 1.00
Soil Type IV
0.75
0.25 0.50
0.25
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. of Stories No. of Stories

3.50
3.25 Soil Type II
Soil Type III
3.00
Soil Type IV
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No. of Stories

Fig. 9. Average ratio of story deflection of flexible-base to fixed-base on soil types II, III and IV. (a) Model S3, (b) Model S5-a, (c) Model S5-b, (d) Model S7 and (e) Model S10.

flexible-base are always less than the story shear of structures
modeled as fixed base. These results have good conformity to the
NEHRP-1997 regulations [14].
According to the average ratio of story displacements and
drifts shown in Figs. 9 and 10, it is seen that in soil type II
(375oVs o750 m/s), the story displacement and drift of struc-
tures modeled with soil as flexible base, does not differ much
from that of structures modeled as fixed base because the average
ratio is nearly one in all models.
For 10 story structures founded on soil type III (175 oVs o 375
m/s) as shown in Figs. 9e and 10e, average ratio is more than one;
thus, the difference between the two cases is considerable.
In 5, 7 and 10 story structures founded on soil type IV
(Vs o175 m/s), and as observed in Fig. 9b–e and 10b–e, the story
displacements and drifts of flexible-base structures are consider-
ably more than that of structures modeled as fixed base. Such a
big difference in story displacements and drifts is not negligible;
thus, the effect of soil–structure interaction must be taken into
 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267 1265

1.00 2.00
Soil Type II
1.75 Soil Type III
Soil Type IV
0.75 1.50

1.25
d~/d

d~/d
0.50 1.00
Soil Type II
Soil Type III 0.75
Soil Type IV
0.25 0.50

0.25

0.00 0.00
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
No. of Stories No. of Stories

2.00 5.00
Soil Type II Soil Type II
1.75 Soil Type III 4.50 Soil Type III
Soil Type IV 4.00 Soil Type IV
1.50
3.50
1.25 3.00
d~/d
d~/d

1.00 2.50

0.75 2.00
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.50
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. of Stories No. of Stories

7.00
6.50 Soil Type II
Soil Type III
6.00
Soil Type IV
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
d~/d

3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No. of Stories

Fig. 10. Average ratio of inter-story drift of flexible-base to fixed-base on soil types II, III and IV. (a) Model S3, (b) Model S5-a, (c) Model S5-b, (d) Model S7 and (e) Model
S10.

account in dynamic analyses. The difference of story displacement
and drift of above mentioned models is due to the fact that
vibration period for structures, modeled with soil, is longer than
that of structures modeled as fixed base [12,3,15].
In fact, by decreasing the rigidity of soil, the difference
between period of vibrations in two cases (structures modeled
on flexible soils and structures modeled as fixed base) will be
increased; consequently, the effect of soil–structure interaction
for soil types III & IV is considerable while for relatively rigid
ground, it is negligible. It should be noted that the above
mentioned results have been derived based on the elastic
behavior of the structures and underneath soil deposits during
the dynamic analysis. However, more investigations including
inelastic behavior of the structures and fully nonlinear behavior of
the soil deposits are being done by the authors of the paper and
will be published in the near future.
1266 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267

6. Simplified procedure to determine SSI According to Figs. 8a, 9a and 10a neglecting the effect of soil–
structure interaction is acceptable in seismic design of 3 story
6.1. A criterion to consider the SSI effects structures on all soil types under the influence of all accelero-
grams. The calculation of the criterion for determining the
Based on Veletsos and Meek studies [11], considering the necessity of considering the effect of soil–structure interaction
effect of soil–structure interaction is necessary when the follow- is applicable for structures higher than 3 stories.
ing criterion exists: As mentioned, in accordance with the results obtained in this
research, it is essential to consider the effect of soil–structure
Vs
o 20 ð2Þ interaction for seismic design of ductile reinforced concrete
fh moment resisting frames of more than 7 stories founded on soil
where Vs ¼soil shear velocity; f¼natural frequency of fixed-base type III and more than 3 story buildings founded on soil type IV.
structure; h¼ total height of structure. Considering these structures (Table 4) it is observed that for all
The above criterion covers all lateral resisting systems structures in which the necessity of this consideration exists,
including rigid and ductile systems. As the rigidity of a structure Veletsos and Meek [11] criterion is less than 10.
against the soil on which it is rested is the main factor in The upper limit of this relation could be easily recognized
determining necessity of considering the effect of soil–structure through consideration of model S7 and S10 on soil type III. It is not
interaction [16,15], the structures with more lateral ductility or necessary to consider the effect of soil–structure interaction in
low response modification factor (behavior factor), can be model S7 on soil type III with a criterion of 10.5, while for model
influenced by the criterion No. 2 more extensively in comparison S10 with the criterion of 9.6 on the same soil, this consideration is
really required.
with ductile structures.
To estimate the above criterion, natural frequency of the In conclusion, according to above cases, in ductile reinforced
concrete moment resisting frames (studied in this research) of
structure obtained from analytical methods, have been used
instead of natural frequency obtained from empirical relations. more than 3 stories, considering the effect of soil–structure is
essential when the following criterion applies:
As using natural frequency of structure obtained from analytical
methods is possible only after analyzing the structure, to Vs
o 10 ð4Þ
determine the necessity of considering the effect of soil–structure fh
interaction in seismic design of building frames before analysis, it
is suggested to use the natural frequency of structure obtained
from the empirical relations. In this case, the structural designer 6.2. Lateral deflection equations
will be able to make decision on considering the effect of soil–
structure interaction prior to its seismic design. As a result, to find Based on the above mentioned work and analyses, the
a specific criterion for determining the consideration of the effect question might cross one’s mind that for the range in which
of soil–structure interaction, in seismic design of ductile moment considering soil–structure interaction effects is essential, does a
resisting reinforced concrete frames with high response modifica- design engineer have to follow the whole process to find the
tion factor (behavior factor), Veletsos and Meek [11] criterion has actual lateral deflections? As taking these steps can be compli-
been calculated for all models and reported in Table 4. In Table 4, cated and time consuming, simple equations for maximum lateral
r, represents the width of the frame, i.e. 8 m for two bays and deflection of the fixed-base structures including soil–structure
12 m for three bays. interaction effects have been proposed in this research.
To increase conformity of this criterion to Iranian Code of As mentioned, base shear of the structures modeled with soil
Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (Standard no. as flexible-base are almost less than the base shear of structures
2800-05) [9], the natural frequency of the structure used in modeled as fixed-base; therefore, this base shear reduction can be
Table 4, obtained from the empirical relation for moment resisting neglected.
reinforced concrete frames which has been mentioned in this The ratio of maximum elastic structural deflection with
standard. This relation is as following: flexible-base to fixed-base has been derived from the results of
soil types III and IV and shown in Table 5. This ratio is called
T ¼ 0:07h3=4 ð3Þ
maximum lateral deflection increment factor (b) and is given as
following:
Table 4 D~
Derivation of the criterion. ¼b ð5Þ
D
Soil Type Model Natural Freq. Story h/r Vs/fh Using curve fitting techniques, the best equation between
Name of Structure Height number of stories and maximum lateral deflection ratio for soil
(Hz) (m)
type III could be derived as following:
Type II Vs ¼ 600 (m/s) S5-a 1.87 15.00 1.87 21.39
S5-b 1.87 15.00 1.25 21.39
b ¼ a þ bS3 ð6Þ
S7 1.45 21.00 1.75 19.70
where a¼0.863, b¼0.00065 and S ¼number of stories.
S10 1.11 30.00 2.50 18.01

Type III Vs ¼ 320 (m/s) S5-a 1.87 15.00 1.87 11.40 Table 5
S5-b 1.87 15.00 1.25 11.40 Ratio of maximum lateral deflection of flexible-base to fixed-base structures on
S7 1.45 21.00 1.75 10.50 soil types III and IV.
S10 1.11 30.00 2.50 9.60
No. of stories Soil type III Soil type IV
Type IV Vs ¼150 (m/s) S5-a 1.87 15.00 1.87 5.34
S5-b 1.87 15.00 1.25 5.34 5 0.96 1.22
S7 1.45 21.00 1.75 4.92 7 1.06 2.58
S10 1.11 30.00 2.50 4.50 10 1.51 2.90
 H.R. Tabatabaiefar, A. Massumi / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1259–1267 1267

3.0  It is essential to consider the effect of soil–structure interaction

for seismic design of RC-MRF buildings higher than 7 stories
2.5 founded on soil type III (175oVs o375 m/s).
 It is essential to consider the effect of soil–structure interac-
2.0 tions for seismic design of RC-MRF buildings higher than 3
stories founded on soil type IV (Vs o175 m/s).
1.5  On the whole, it is essential to consider the effect of soil–
structure interaction for seismic design of RC-MRF buildings
1.0 when the following criterion exists: ðVs =fhÞ o 10.
Soil Type III  To find the maximum elastic deflection for the above
0.5 mentioned range of the structures, it is adequate to find the
Soil Type IV
maximum elastic deflection of the fixed-base structure
0.0 according to conventional methods and multiply it by b factor
5 6 7 8 9 10 which could be derived from Eqs. (6) and (7) or Fig. 11.
No. of Stories

Fig. 11. Maximum lateral deflection increment factor (b) vs. number of stories.

References

[1] Nateghi F, Rezaei A, Behnamfar F. Structure–soil–structure effects on

Similar steps have been taken for soil type IV and the best
equation is found as following:
 0:5
b Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.; 1996.
b ¼ aþ 2 ð7Þ
S [3] Wakabayashi M. Design of earthquake-resistant buildings. TX: Mc Graw-Hill;
where a ¼11.112, b¼ 237.6 and S ¼number of stories.
Eq. (5) could be written as
D~ ¼ bD
As a result, the maximum elastic deflection of the flexible-base
structure is equal to maximum lateral deflection of the fixed-base
structure multiplied by b factor which could be derived from
Eqs. (6) and (7).
The relation between b factor and number of stories in soil
types III and IV has been shown in Fig. 11.
Finally, to find the maximum elastic deflection for the range of
the structures where considering soil–structure interaction is
essential (based on the criterion presented in Eq. (4)), it is
adequate to find the maximum elastic deflection of the fixed-base
structure using conventional methods and multiply it by b factor
which could be determined from Eqs. (6) and (7) or Fig. 11.
7. Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn from the analytical
investigation reported in this paper on the elastic response of the
ductile reinforced concrete frame structures designed based on
the Iranian Seismic Code (Standard no. 2800-05) and modeled
with and without soil:
 It is not necessary to consider the effect of soil–structure
interaction for seismic design of RC-MRF buildings founded on
soil type II (375oVs o750 m/s).
nonlinear dynamic response of tall buildings. In: Proceedings of the first
European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2006.
[2] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, New
1985.
[4] Computers & Structures, Inc. (CSI) website. Soil–structure interaction, 2007.
/www.csiberkeley.com/Tech_Info/16.pdfS.
[5] Clough R, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures, 3rd ed. Computers & Structures,
ð8Þ Inc.; 2003.
[6] Massumi A, Tabatabaiefar HR. Effects of soil–structure interaction on seismic
behavior of ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. In:
Proceedings of the World Housing Congress on affordable quality housing,
WHC2007: challenges and issues in the provision of shelter for all. Housing
Research Center, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia (UPM),
Terengganu, Malaysia; 2007.
[7] Ghosh S, Wilson EL. Dynamic stress analysis of axi-symmetric structures
under arbitrary loading. Report no. EERC 69-10, University of California,
Berkeley, 1969.
[8] Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Iranian national building code
(Part 6). Tehran, Iran, 2006.
[9] Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). Iranian code of practice for
seismic resistant design of buildings, Standard no. 2800-05, 3rd ed., 2005.
[10] Management and Planning Organization of I.R. Iran. Iranian concrete code of
practice, ABA, Publication no.120, Iran, 2001.
[11] Veletsos AS, Meek JW. Dynamic behavior of building-foundation system.
J Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1974;3(2):121–138.
[12] Massumi A, Tabatabaiefar HR. Effects of soil–structure interaction on seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete buildings with moment resisting system
(using direct method). In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, SEE5. Tehran, Iran: International
Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES); 2007.
[13] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response
analysis. Report no. UCB/EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
1970.
[14] BSSC, NEHRP. Recommended provisions for seismic regulation for new
buildings and other structures, 1997 edition, part 2: Commentary FEMA 303.
Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997.
[15] Wolf JP. Dynamic soil–structure interaction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice
Hall; 1987.
[16] Chopra AK, Gutierres JA. Earthquake analysis of multistory buildings
including foundation interaction. Report no. EERC 73-13, University of
California, Berkeley, 1973.

View publication stats