Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Study of Soil Structure Interaction on RCC Building

Shubham Devidas Dhakne1, Viraj Vijay Jadhav2, Khomane Govardhan Chandrakant3, Krishna Vikram Wangade4, S.M. Barelikar 5
U.G. Student, SAE Kondhwa, Maharashtra State, India1,2,3,4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SAE Kondhwa, Maharashtra State, India5

Abstract:- The response of a structure to an earthquake is soil response affects the structural movement and the
influenced by the relationship between the structure, the structural movement affects the soil response is called the
foundation, and the three linked systems of soil beneath soil-structural interaction (SSI).
the foundation and adjacent soil. Soil structure
interaction analysis estimates the combined response of Structural stiffness and soil load subsidence
these systems to well-defined ground movements. The characteristics affect the amount of load redistribution acting
terms Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) and Soil-Base- on the structural members of the structure. Since then, there
Structure Interaction (SFSI) are both used in the have been several studies in the literature conducted to
literature to define this effect. In this treatise, the estimate the effects of this factor. Traditional structural
foundation is measured as part of the structure and the design techniques ignore this SSI effect. Ignoring SSI is
term SSI is adopted. suitable for light structures with relatively hard soil, such as
low-rise buildings and simple hard retaining walls. However,
Keywords:- Soil Structure Interaction, Framed Structure, the impact of SSI is more pronounced on heavy structures on
Behavior of Foundation, ETABS. relatively soft soils such as nuclear power plants, skyscrapers
and highways. Ground-structure interaction analysis is a
I. INTRODUCTION method of assessing the collective response of the above three
linked systems to a particular ground motion. Soil-structure
Soil-structural interactions can be defined primarily as a interaction can be defined as the process by which the
group of structural responses caused by the elasticity of the response from the soil influences the movement of the
soil beneath the foundation, and soil response phenomena structure and the movement of a particular structure
initiated by the development of structures. A complete soil influences the response from the soil. This is a phenomenon
foundation structural system consists of a superstructure in which structural displacement and ground displacement are
frame, its foundation, and the soil above it, as shown in independent of each other.
Figure 1. Both the axial force and the moment of the
structural member can change due to different settlements II. RELATED WORK
(due to the causative soil characteristics) between different
parts of the structure. Shehata E. Abdel Raheem et. al. (2014) studied that
the effects of Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) can be
detrimental to the seismic response of the structure, and
ignoring the SSI in the analysis can lead to un-conservative
designs. Nevertheless, normal design procedures assume
that the foundation is fixed to the foundation, ignoring the
requirements for foundation flexibility, mass
compressibility, and consequent bending moments and
shear forces. I will. Includes the impact of foundation
subsidence on further redistribution. The impact of SSI is
analyzed in a typical skyscraper on a raft foundation.
Seismic resistance of the target. Seismic resistance of using
frame frame building materials was evaluated using three
analysis methods. Response spectrum (RS) method and
nonlinear time history (TH) analysis. Three-dimensional
finite element (FE) models have been constructed to
analyze the effects of various soil conditions and floors on
Fig -1: Interaction between structure, foundation plate and the vibrational properties and seismic response
soil requirements of building structures. Numerical results
obtained using the soil structure interaction model
Most civil engineering structures contain certain conditions are compared with those corresponding to the
structural elements that come into direct contact with the fixed floor support conditions. Layer shear, layer moments,
ground. When external forces such as earthquakes act on layer displacements, layer drifts, peak response of beam
these systems, structural and ground displacements do not end moments, and internal column forces are analyzed.
remain independent of each other. The process by which the

IJISRT21JUN532 www.ijisrt.com 766

Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Jonathan P. Stewart et. al. (2013) The analysis 15%. Amplifying the response parallel to the building
procedure and system identification method for evaluating interface is less important and only increases the demand
the effect of inertial SSI on the seismic structure response load by 2%. The Savannah River Site soil profile applied to
were explained. The analytical procedure is similar to the the pretreatment facility complex structure reduced the
provisions of some building codes, but more reasonably SSSI amplification apparent in the Hanford Site soil profile.
incorporates the effects of foundation embedding, Softer soils produce less SSSI effects than harder soils.
flexibility, and shape on the site conditions and the
impedance of the foundation. Implementation of analytical Barış Sevim et.al studied the blast response of a two-
procedures and system identification techniques has been story reinforced concrete (RC) building under various charge
demonstrated using buildings that shook during the 1994 weights of TNT explosives. In this study, a two-story RC
Northridge earthquake. The analytical procedure accurately building was numerically modeled with RC columns, beams,
predicts the observed SSI effect. Reliable papers have made floors as structural elements, and walls and windows as non-
these analyzes work, empirically assessing the SSI effect structural elements. Blast modeling was configured using
with strong motion data accessible from a wide range of ANSYS AUTODYN (2016) software, and explicit analysis of
sites, and disseminating the SSI effect on seismic structure the building was also performed with this software for a
excitation and response. Draw conclusions. This article period of 3 ms. Use ANSYS Workbench to simulate a model
describes two sets of analyses. (1) Simplified design of an existing building in Istanbul, Turkey, which was
procedure that can be used to predict the period extension bombed in August 2015.Three explicit analyses were
ratio and foundation damping coefficient of structures with performed considering 0.1 ton, 0.25 ton and 0.5 ton TNT
surface (MV) or embedded (MV or MB) foundations. (2) explosives. The results showed that the different charge
System identification procedure for evaluating modal weight of TNT explosives considerably affected blasting
vibration parameters of fixed and flexible bases from response of the two-storey RC building. Also, the main
strong seismic data. The greatest uncertainty in using the damages are obtained on the first storey slab. The pressure
MV and MB procedures for a given free field motion is values obtained show that the building can resist against blast
related to the impedance function. Evaluation of shear loading of 0.1 ton TNT explosive.
wave velocity profiles, modeling of embedded foundations
(MB procedure may not be appropriate if the basement wall Objectives of investigation:
is not continuous around the foundation), oval foundation,  To check the stability of structure with seismic load in
or flexible to support the central core The foundation seismic zones V.
should be carefully considered for rigid shear walls. The  To understand the effect of soil structure interaction.
parametric system identification procedure provides a  To find the effect of SSI on structure.
reliable basis for evaluating modal vibration parameters of
structures under various basic fixed conditions. However, III. METHODOLOGY
in order to reasonably interpret the results of such analyses,
it is necessary to fully consider the disturbance of strong For present work seismic analysis is carried out for
motion data and potential numerical errors in identification reinforced concrete moment resisting building frame G+12
by proper characterization of nonlinear structural responses. Storey, is considered for the present study to investigate SSI
effects on tall buildings. The plan dimension of the building
L. M. Anderson et.al. (2011) In this white paper, the is 28.20 m by 16.10 m and the height of the building is 43 m
SSI effect is measured by considering two models, one that from the ground level. The stilt height is 4m from the base
contains the entire complex of structures and one that level and all other stories are 3 m. Two types of buildings
contains only the structures that show the most important considered in the study, which are:
SSSI responses. Amplification is quantified by comparing 1) Buildings without fixed base (soft and hard)
the transfer function with the required acceleration of the 2) Buildings with flexible base with SSI
seismic component. Replacing the soil parameters at the
Hanford Site with the soil parameters at the Savannah
River Site (SRS) provides a realistic study of the sensitivity
of the soil parameters. SRS is also a division of energy
facilities. Since the site is located in South Carolina, the
hardness of the soil is not very strict and a practical
comparison is possible. Soil stiffness sensitivity is
quantified by taking the ratio of the combined model's
response to the individual model's response for both soil
types. They concluded that the pre-treatment facility
management building exhibits a significant increase in
seismic demand load due to the SSSI effect of the adjacent
larger structures. The weighted average ratio of maximum
node acceleration shows that SSSI amplification is highest
in the vertical direction, increasing seismic demand by 33%.
Amplification of the response perpendicular to the building
boundary is also important, increasing seismic demand by

IJISRT21JUN532 www.ijisrt.com 767

Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
ETABS 9.7.4 facilitating modeling a 12-story building thickness and eccentricity. Shell elements can withstand
modeled using software. The entire building is modeled as a bending, shearing, and membrane forces. Floor slabs are
3D RC frame model. Beams and columns are modeled using modeled with membrane elements because they are supposed
R.C 3-D beam elements with 6 degrees of freedom at each to be rigid diaphragms. Shear walls are modeled using 3D
node. The slab is modeled as an infinitely rigid membrane in quadrilateral shell elements, and all shell elements are
its own plane and provides a diaphragm action to transfer assigned M35 grade material.
horizontal loads to columns and shear walls. Shear walls are
modeled using R.C3-D shell elements. 3D R.C beam Buildings with fixed base: The co-ordinate points are the
elements are used to model the frame of the structure. Steel is placements of columns according to the base plan layout of
modeled as a bar element, concrete is modeled as a beam the structure. All the points will be constrained with ux, uy,
element, and it is assumed that the two materials are perfectly uz, rx, ry and rz coordinates for fixed base condition, which
bonded. The frame section of the modeling process contains means no linear and rotational Displacements are allowed.
beams and columns. Sections of various columns used in Storey 1 being a Master storey, remaining stories modeled
modeling. All pillars are made of M35 grade concrete and Fe according to it. The complete building has been modeled
500 grade steel. Table 1 details the beam and column sections using appropriate elements of beams, columns, slabs and
used in the modeling. shear walls in each storey. as shown in Fig. 2.

Table 1 Sections properties of all structural members Building on Raft foundation: The 29.8x17.7x0.5m raft
Beams Columns slab shear wall foundation is modeled using a thick R.C. Shell elements, to
230mm0x450mm 350x750 125mm 150mm for facilitate simulation of Soil Structure Interaction effects for
for all floors for first 5 for all all floors the clayey soil. The building with raft foundation model is as
floors floors shown in the Fig. 3. The properties of clayey soil have
350x450 adopted and calculated, are shown in Table-2. Spring
for stiffness values for vertical, horizontal, rocking and twist
remaining motion are calculated according to the Richart and Lysmer
floors models. The entire area is meshed with quad shell elements
and a soil spring is applied.
Slabs and shear walls are modeled with R.C shell
elements. Shell elements are stacks of monolayers of varying

Fig. 2: 3D rendering view of building with Fig. 3: 3D rendering view of building

fixed base in ETABS with raft foundation and applied soil springs in ETABS

IJISRT21JUN532 www.ijisrt.com 768

Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table 2: Soil Spring Values as Per Richart and Lysmer
Direction Spring Values Equivalent
Radius
Vertical 4G𝑟𝑧 𝐿𝐵
Kz = r z=√
(1−θ) 𝜋

Horizontal 32(1−θ)G𝑟𝑥 𝐿𝐵
Kx=K y = (7−8θ) r x=√
𝜋
3
8𝐺𝑟𝜑𝑥
Rocking 4 𝐿𝐵3
Kⱷx = 3(1−θ) r ⱷx= √ 3𝜋
3
8𝐺𝑟𝜑𝑦 4 𝐿𝐵3
Kⱷy = r ⱷy= √
3(1−θ) 3𝜋
3
16𝐺𝑟𝜑𝑧
Twisting Kⱷz = 4 𝐿𝐵 3 +𝐵𝐿3
3 r ⱷz= √ 6𝜋

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

After analysing all the models with response spectrum analysis we found that values of lateral displacement (mm) with floor
level in X direction increased slightly around 4-10% with soil structure interaction as compared to fixed base. The values of lateral
displacement (mm) with floor level in Y direction increased slightly around 4-7% with soil structure interaction as compared to
fixed base. Values of time period of building with mode no for zone V increased slightly around 1-2% with soil structure
interaction as compared to fixed base. Values of Story Drift with floor level in X direction for zone V increased by 7-8% with soil
structure interaction as compared to fixed base case. Values of Story Drift with floor level in Y direction increased by 6-10% with
soil structure interaction as compared to fixed base case. It is found out that, base shear in X and Y direction is almost similar in
both cases as there is no increase in seismic weight of the building.

100 140 Fixed

90 Fixed
Base HS
Base HS 120
80
70 100
Flexible Flexible
60 Base HS 80 Base HS
50 with SSI with SSI
40 60
Fixed Fixed
30 base SS 40 base SS
20
Flexible 20
10 Flexible
Base SS
0 0 Base SS
with SSI
Base S 2 4 6 8 10 12 Base S 2 4 6 8 10 12 with SSI

(a) (b)
Fig.: 4 (a) & (b) shows the variation of lateral displacement (mm) with floor level in X & Y direction for zone V

0.0035
Fixed 0.0045
Base Fixed Base
0.003 0.004
HS HS
0.0035
0.0025
Flexible
0.003 Flexible
Base
0.002 HS with 0.0025 Base HS
SSI with SSI
0.0015 Fixed 0.002
Fixed base
base SS 0.0015 SS
0.001
0.001
0.0005 Flexible 0.0005 Flexible
Base SS Base SS
0 with 0 with SSI
S

6
Base

SSI Base S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(a) (b)
Fig.: 5 (a) & (b) shows the variation of Story Drift with floor level in X & Y direction for zone V

IJISRT21JUN532 www.ijisrt.com 769

Volume 6, Issue 6, June – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

7000 5500

5000
6000
Fixed Base HS 4500 Fixed Base HS
5000 4000
Flexible Base HS Flexible Base HS
with SSI 3500
4000 with SSI
Fixed base SS 3000
Fixed base SS
3000
2500
Flexible Base SS Flexible Base SS
2000 with SSI 2000
with SSI
1500
1000
1000
Base Shear
Base Shear

(a) (b)
Fig.: 6 (a) & (b) shows the variation of base shear (kN) of buildings in X &Y direction for zone V

V. CONCLUSION [7]. Aditya Parihar, Navjeev Saxena, D. K. Paul, (2010)

“Effects of W ects of Wall-Soil-Structur all-Soil-Structure
Variation of storey drift in both the cases is parabolic Inter e Interaction on Seismic Response of action on
with middle storeys showing maximum drift. When SSI is Seismic Response of Retaining Wall” Missouri University
considered there is a magnification of storey drift in the middle of Science and Technology.
storeys. Variation of lateral displacement in both the cases is [8]. Erkan Dogan and Aybike Ozyuksel Ciftcioglu, (2010)
maximum at top stories showing maximum displacement, also “Weight optimization of steel frames with cellular beams
the displacement value increases when SSI is taken into through improved hunting search algorithm” Advances in
consideration. The base shear for with soil structure interaction Structural Engineering 1–14.
case is almost same as compared to fixed base case as there is
no increase in seismic weight of the building.

REFERENCES

[1]. Shehata E. Abdel Raheema, Mohamed M. Ahmed, Tarek

M. A. Alazrak, (2014) “Soil-raft foundation-structure
interaction effects on seismic performance of multi-story
MRF buildings” Engineering Structures and Technologies.
[2]. Jui-Liang Lin, Keh-Chyuan Tsai, Eduardo Miranda, (2014)
“Seismic History Analysis of Asymmetric Buildings with
Soil–Structure Interaction”, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE0733-
9445) (2009135:2)101 Journal of Structural Engineering
© ASCE.
[3]. Mohd Ahmed, Mahmoud H. Mohamed, Javed Mallick,
Mohd Abul Hasan, (2014) “3D-Analysis of Soil-
Foundation-Structure Interaction in Layered Soil” Open
Journal of Civil Engineering, 2014, 4, 373-385.
[4]. Jonathan P. Stewart,1 Gregory L. Fenves,2 and Raymond
B. Seed, (2013) “Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction In
Buildings. I: Analytical Methods” Journal of Geotechnical
And Geo-environmental Engineering.
[5]. M. E. Boostani Darmian, M. Azhdary Moghaddam & H.R.
Naseri, (2011) “Soil–Structure Interaction In Steel Braced
Structures With Foundation Uplift” IJRRAS May 201.
www.arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol7Issue2/IJRRAS_7_2_1
2
[6]. L. M. Anderson, S. Carey, and J. Amin, (2011) “Effect of
Structure, Soil, and Ground Motion Parameters on
Structure-Soil Structure Interaction of Large Scale Nuclear
Structures” Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE.

IJISRT21JUN532 www.ijisrt.com 770