Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on Performance

and Behavior of Three Dimensional Framed

Structure Based on ASCE41-06


M. Alinejad & A. Shafiee
International Inistitue of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Iran








SUMMARY
How to consider the soilstructure interaction to the model of structures, including cases in which the last few
years has been included explicitly in the regulations, in American seismic rehabilitation code (ASCE41-06) soil-
structure interaction in three section, foundation modeling, kinematic interaction and foundation damping is
presented, in this paper soil-structure interaction effects on response of structures has studied based on
mentioned code.
Used models in this analysis is designed the three dimensional and based on Iranian seismic code (2008) and
then, using nonlinear static analysis (pushover) have been evaluated. The results indicate that foundation
modeling increases period of structure, target displacement and drift in structures and on the other hand it had
adverse effects on evaluation parameters of component. While kinematic interaction and foundation damping
decrease design response accelerations, thus reducing target displacement of structures, improvement of
evaluation parameters of elements are another result of kinematic interaction and foundation damping.

Keywords: Nonlinear static analysis, Isolated foundation, Foundation damping, Reinforced concrete building.


1. INTRODUCTION

In general, buildings are designed by cropping the superstructure and analyzing it as a fixed base
structure founded on the ground surface.

It is important to incorporate the foundation soil and side soil explicitly in the mathematical model of
the structure to be able to assess the effect of the foundation of the building adequately on its seismic
performance. This is also essential since the current trend of using performance-based design
approaches in lieu of traditional force-based design approaches in the seismic design of buildings
dictate that soilstructure interaction (SSI) analysis becomes an integral part of methods used in the
seismic evaluation of buildings. Perhaps the most popular approach in modeling the nonlinear
response of the foundation soil and side soil is the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF)
approach due to its merit of simplicity in defining the parameters involved in the model.

The main objective of this paper is to better understand the seismic performance of three-dimensional
(3D) frame structures. To achieve this objective, nonlinear Pushover analyses for 3D moment-
resisting frame concrete structures with stories ranging from one to six stories were performed.

The nonlinear structural analysis program SAP2000 [SAP 2000, 2005] was chosen for this research
since it is dedicated mainly for the performance assessment of 3D structures in the context of
performance based design (PBD).
2. DESCRIPTION OF MODEL BUILDINGS

2.1. Description of model geometry and structural system

The models adopted herein are 53 bays moment resisting frame concrete buildings, having a constant
bay Dimension of 7m6m and constant story height of 3.6m Fig. 1 shows the plan of the repetitive
story of the buildings. The lateral resisting system of the building constituted frames where the girders
were rigidly connected to the columns. Fig. 2 shows the layout of the lateral resisting system of a
typical model building. The parametric study involves evaluating the seismic performance of one,
three and six story buildings. The buildings were assumed to be resting on shallow foundations.

Figure 1. Plan of the repetitive story of the buildings Figure 2. Lateral resisting system for a typical building

The thickness of the slabs was taken as 0.15m to be consistent with approximately 1/20 of the slab
span as specified by ACI318 [ACI, 2002] document. The slabs were represented in the structural
model of the building using its weight in the gravity load case. In addition, all the nodes lying in the
plane of each floor were assigned a rigid diaphragm constraint. However, the slabs were not modeled
explicitly and consequently their bending stiffness was neglected. This is consistent with the
assumption that the moment-resisting frames form the lateral resisting system of the building.

2.2. Gravity loads

The gravity loads assigned to the buildings were the own weight of structural components, including
the reinforced concrete girders, columns and slabs. It also included the weight of the nonstructural
components (e.g. cladding, partitions, floor finishing, etc.) in addition to the live load assigned to the
slabs. Since the slabs were not modeled explicitly, their weight and the live load they carry were
included in the structural model by distributing its reaction on the supporting girders. Table1 lists the
loads used in defining the gravity loads acting on the buildings.

Table 1. Loads used in defining the gravity loads acting on the buildings.
Equivalent uniformly distributed dead load(kg/m
2
)
780 Dead
350 Live
Resultant concentrated load on 6m bay(kg)
5271 Dead
1840 Live
Resultant distributed load on 7m bay(kg/m)
1170 Dead
525 Live

2.3. Steel and concrete

The reinforcing steel of the building and foundation were assumed to be of the same grade. The steel
yield strength was taken as 4000kPa, with an elastic modulus of 200,000MPa. The steel Poissons
ratio was taken as 0.3. The concrete of the structural elements and foundations had f
c
=28000 kPa.

The buildings site was assumed to have a 30-m-thick deposit of homogeneous soil underlain by the
bedrock. Therefore, the average properties in the top 30m were used for calculating the foundation and
side soil mechanical properties in accordance with the Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance
Design of Buildings (No. 2800-05) [Iranian Code, 2005] specifications.

The soil deposit used in the current study is soft soil (Type V) in accordance with the site classification of the
Code No. 2800-05. Table 2 lists the properties assigned for these two soil classes in the current study from the
ranges specified by Code No. 2800-05 [2005], Bowels [1996] and ASCE41 [2006] document.

Table 2. Soil properties assigned for soil
175 Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s)
1500 Dry unit weight (kg/m3)
28
0
Angle of internal friction,
0

0.30 Poisson ratio,


3. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS

The one, three and six story buildings were designed using the structural analysis program SAP2000
assuming fixed base condition at the ground surface. This step provided preliminary sections for the
structural members of the buildings, which would be augmented by foundation soil for further seismic
analysis.

The reinforced concrete design feature included in SAP200 was utilized to perform the seismic design
of the buildings. The seismic loads were calculated using the equivalent static force procedure as
specified by the Code No.2800-05. Table3 lists the parameters used in calculating the seismic loads
acting on the buildings. The structural members of the buildings were designed according to the
loading cases and guidelines specified by the Code No.2800-05 and the ACI318-02. Table 4 lists the
preliminary sections for the girders and columns of the buildings as obtained from the SAP2000
analysis and design stage. Table 5 lists the plan dimensions for isolated foundation in each building,
the thickness of foundations are assumed equal in each building; it is for one story building 0.35m,
three story building 0.6m and six story building 0.85m. Fig. 3 shows the plan of the foundation
position of the buildings.
Table 5. Plan dimensions for foundations
Table 3. Parameter used in calculating seismic loads


Table 4. Sections of beams and columns
Column
dimensio
n
(cmxcm)
Beam
dimension
(cmxcm)
Story No. Building Model
40x40 40x40 1 1 story building
55x55
50x50
45x45
55x55
50x50
45x45
1
2
3
3 story building
70x70
65x65
60x60
55x55
50x50
45x45
70x70
65x65
60x60
55x55
50x50
45x45
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 story building

Foundation
No.
1 Story
building(m)
3 Story
building(m)
6 Story
building(m)
1 2.4 4.7 6.2
2 2.9 5.3 7
3 2.9 5.3 7
4 3.1 4.8 6.5
5 2.8 5.3 7.1
6 3.2 6 8
7 3.2 6 8
8 3.1 5.4 7.2
9 2.8 5.3 7
10 3.2 6 7.9
11 3.1 6 7.9
12 3 5.4 7.1
13 2.8 5.3 7
14 3.2 6 7.9
15 3.2 6 7.9
16 3 5.4 7.1
17 2.8 5.3 7.1
18 3.2 6 8
19 3.2 6 8
20 3 5.4 7.2
21 3.1 4.8 6.3
22 3.1 5.4 7
23 3 5.4 7
24 3.1 4.8 6.5

T=0.07(H)
3/4
Fundamental period (in seconds)
T
0
=0.7 Soil type V
W=W
D
+0.4W
L
Effective weight of the structure
1.2 Importance factor, I
Sa=0.7(T
0
/T)
2/3
spectral response acceleration
6
Ductility plus Overstrength-related
force modification factor


Figure 3. Plan of the foundation position


4. NONLINEAR MODELING OF THE STRUCTURES

The seismic performance of the model buildings was examined with an emphasis on the effect of
foundation soil on the building performance. To achieve this goal the nonlinear structural analysis
program SAP2000 is used.

4.1. Modelling of the superstructure

Among the several available common approaches, the lumped plasticity approach is chosen because it
is a good compromise between simplicity and accuracy. In this approach, all in-elastic deformation of
the frame member is concentrated at specifically identified parts of the member which are expected to
undergo plastic deformations. The other parts of the member are modeled as elastic elements (Fig. 4).

The dependency of the columns moments to axial forces is represented by calculating an Mx-
My-P (moment-axial force) interaction diagram based on ACI318-02. Beams and columns
should remain essentially elastic in shear, since shear failure in reinforced concrete is a brittle
mode of failure. This renders inelastic shear behavior in structural members an undesired
target performance. Finally, the slabs are intended to behave elastically and, as stated before,
were not included in the structural model.

However, ASCE 41 gives deformation capacities for the inelastic components corresponding
to the three target performance levels for structural components, namely: immediate
occupancy (IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP). Fig. 5 shows the deformation
capacities of the inelastic components

Figure 4. Lumped plasticity beam element Figure 5. Deformation capacities of the inelastic components

4.2. Modelling of the foundation

The dynamic interaction between superstructure and substructure can be divided into three
Components based on ASCE41: inertial interaction (spring model of foundation and foundation
damping) and kinematic interaction.

Kinematic interaction is referred to the deviation of ground motion due to presence of a stiff
foundation with/without mass and inertial interaction is a consequent deformation of foundation soil
due to induced base shear and moments from the superstructure. The relative importance of these two
components depends on the foundation characteristics and nature of incoming wave field.

4.2.1. Spring model of foundation
For shallow bearing footings that are rigid with respect to the supporting soil, an uncoupled spring
model shall represent the foundation stiffness. The equivalent spring constants shall be calculated as
specified in Figure 6.



Figure 6. Equivalent spring constants of foundations

The values of the stiffnesss of the springs are dependent on the mechanical characteristics of the soil
material, the dimensions of the foundation, and its embedment depth. The mechanical characteristics
of the foundation soil medium are represented by the effective shear modulus G, the mass density ,
and Poissons ratio . At low strain, the maximum shear modulus G0 is related to the shear wave
velocity Vs according to the following expressions:

(4.1)

4.2.2. Kinematic interaction
The following simplified procedure is recommended for analysis of kinematic interaction effects as a
function of period, T, of the structural model (based on ASCE41):
1. Evaluate the effective foundation size ab b
e
= , where a and b are the full footprint
dimensions (in foot) of the building foundation in plan view.
2. Evaluate the RRS from base-slab averaging (RRSbsa) as a function of period (see Fig 7).
3. The spectral ordinate of the foundation input motion at each period is the product of the free-
field spectrum and the total RRS.
4. Repeat steps 2 through 3 for other periods if desired to generate a complete spectrum for the
foundation input motion (FIM).

Based on mentioned steps, design spectrum presented in figure 8.






4.2.3. Foundation Damping
The following simplified procedure can be used to estimate
f
| and the subsequent spectral ordinate
change due to the modified damping ratio of the complete structural system
0
| . (FEMA 440 [ATC,
2005]):
1- Determine the equivalent foundation radius for translation and rotation (r
u
and r

)

t /
f x
A r =
(4.2)

3 / 1
8
) 1 ( 3
|
.
|

\
|
=
G
K
r
u v
u
(4.3)

where A
f
is the area of the foundation footprint if the foundation components are inter-connected
laterally. The soil shear modulus, G, and soil Poissons ratio, , should be consistent with those used
in the evaluation of foundation spring stiffness, and
x
fixed
fixed
K
K
T
T
h K
K
*
2
2 *
1
) (

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

u
(4.4)

2 * *
)
2
(
T
M K
fixed
t
=
(4.5)

where M* is the effective mass for the first mode calculated as the total mass times the effective mass
coefficient and h* is the effective structure height taken as the full height of the building for one-story
structures, and as the vertical distance from the foundation to the centroid of the first mode shape for
multi-story structures. In the latter case, h* can often be well-approximated as 70% of the total
structure height. The quantity K
x
is often much larger than K*
fixed
, in which case an accurate evaluation
of K
x
is unnecessary and the ratio, K*
fixed
/Kx, can be approximated as zero.
2- Estimate the effective period-lengthening ratio

(
(

|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

1 )
1
( 1
T
T
T
T
eq
eq

(4.6)

where the term is the expected ductility demand for the system (i.e., including structure and soil
effects). Thus, the ductility must be estimated prior to the actual solution and subsequently verified.
3- Evaluate the initial fixed-base damping ratio for the structure (
i
), which is often taken as 5%.
4- Determine foundation damping due to radiation damping,
f
, using figure 9.
5- Evaluate the flexible-base damping ratio (
0
) from
i
,
f
, and as follows:
Figure 7. Ratio of response spectra for base
slab averaging, RRSbsa, as a function of period.
T, and effective foundation size, be.
Figure 8. Standard spectrum versus modified
spectrum with kinematic interaction for all
buildings.
3 0
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

eq
eq
i
f
T T
|
| |
(4.7)

6- Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates of the change in damping ratio from
0
to
f
.

( )
( )
( )
0
0
|
|
B
S
S
a
a
=
(4.8)

( ) % ln 6 . 5
4
0
in
B
|
=
(4.9)

where B is damping coefficients [Stewart et al., 1998].

Based on mentioned steps, modified design spectrum presented in figures 10 to 12 for all buildings.











5. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF BUILDING

After designing and detailing the reinforced concrete frame structures, a nonlinear pushover analysis is
carried out for evaluating the structural seismic response. The pushover analysis consists of the
application of gravity loads and a representative lateral load pattern based on ASCE41. The lateral
loads were applied monotonically in a step-by-step nonlinear static analysis. The applied lateral loads
were accelerations in the x and y direction representing the forces that would be experienced by the
Figure 9. foundation damping,
f,
as a
function of effective period lengthening ratio
Figure 10. Standard spectrum versus modified spectrum
with foundation damping for 1 story building.
Figure 11. Standard spectrum versus modified
spectrum with foundation damping for 3 story building.
Figure 12. Standard spectrum versus modified
spectrum with foundation damping for 6 story building.
structures when subjected to ground shaking. Under incrementally increasing loads some elements
may yield sequentially. Target displacement of buildings calculated based on ASCE41. Table 6 lists
target displacement of buildings without/with soil structure interaction.

Table 6.Target displacement of buildings
Building
Without Soil-Structure Interaction With Soil-Structure Interaction
Direction
Fundamental
Period (s)
Target displacement
(cm)
Fundamental
Period (s)
Target displacement
(cm)
1 story
X 0.46 5.85 0.53 6.58
Y 0.46 5.85 0.525 6.45
3 story
X 0.816 21.48 0.87 23.71
Y 0.805 21.48 0.87 23.71
6 story
X 1.21 44.12 1.28 45.89
Y 1.19 42.67 1.32 47.46

5.1. Dynamic properties of buildings

Fundamental period of the building is the best parameter that determines dynamic properties of the
buildings. Fig. 13 shows the ratio of fundamental period of buildings with flexible-base to fixed-base.
It shows that fundamental period of the flexible-base structures is longer than fixed-base structures; it
may be up to 16 percent; its because of foundation flexibility in models.

5.2. Drift of stories

Drift of stories is one of the important factors that must be regarded in designing framed structures.
Fig. 14 shows the ratio of drift of stories of 6 story building with soil structure interaction to without it.
It shows that drift of the flexible-base structures is longer than fixed-base structures.






5.3. Capacity curve

The two resulting capacity curves for 1 and 6 story buildings are shown in Figures 15 and 16. The
two curves show similar features. They are initially linear but start to deviate from linearity as the
beams and the columns undergo inelastic actions. The linear part of the curves indicates stiffness
of the buildings and final position of the curves indicates target displacement of the buildings.

Figure 13. The ratio of period for buildings with soil
structure interaction to without soil structure interaction
Figure 14. The ratio of drift to height of the story for
buildings with soil structure interaction to without soil
structure interaction




5.4. Component evaluation parameters

Component evaluation in nonlinear static analysis is the most important part of the evaluation of the
building. Plastic hinges positions in behavior curve of the component show seismic performance of
them. The ratio of the number of components with soil structure interaction to without it show in
figures 17 to 22.







Figure 15. Capacity curve for 1 story building Figure 16. Capacity curve for 6 story building
Figure 17. Performance level of columns
in 1 story model
Figure 18. Performance level of beams
in 1 story model
Figure 19. Performance level of columns
in 3 story model
Figure 20. Performance level of beams
in 3 story model






6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The seismic performance of buildings with multiple stories was investigated. One, three and six story
3D moment-resisting frame concrete buildings stories have been examined. The buildings were
assumed to be founded on shallow foundations. Tehran seismic area has been considered for this
study. The dynamic analysis was conducted using the nonlinear structural analysis software SAP
2000. The results indicate that the SSI can considerably affect the seismic response of surface
buildings as well as buildings founded on soft soil conditions. In general, the results showed that SSI
effects are important for buildings founded on soft ground conditions.

This study showed fundamental period of the flexible-base structures is longer than fixed-base structures
as well as effective damping which is higher for the soil-structure system than for the structure alone.

Total displacements of the structure are larger in flexibly based structure and can be quite important
for pounding of buildings; on the hand, drifts and damage to structural components are smaller than
those of fixed-base structures.

The deformations of the structural components of the buildings have also been affected by the SSI.
The deformations of buildings with flexible bases have shown a considerable increase that ranged
from 30 to 160 compared to the fixed base case for buildings founded on soil type V. This would in
turn increase the lateral deflection of the whole building. Thus, SSI can have a detrimental effect on
the performance of buildings.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318(2002); Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-02), Detroit (MI):
American Concrete Institute.
American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency (2006); Standard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE41-06), Virginia.
Applied Technology Council (2005); Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures (FEMA440).
Redwood City, CA.
Bowels, J.E (1996); Foundation analysis and design, 5
th
Ed, McGraw-Hill. Book.
Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance Design of Buildings (No. 2800-05), (2005),3
rd
edition,
Building and housing research center, Iran.
SAP 2000 Manual (2005); Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three Dimensional
Structures, Inc.Berkeley, California.
Stewart J.P., Seed R.B. , Fenves G.L. (1998); Empirical evaluation of inertial Soil-Structure Interaction effects,
PEER 98107.
Figure 21. Performance level of columns
in 6 story model
Figure 22. Performance level of beams
in 6 story model