Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Natural Hazards Research

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/natural-hazards-research

Effect of soil structure interaction on the dynamic response of reinforced

concrete structures
Faisal Mehraj Wani a, *, Jayaprakash Vemuri a, Chenna Rajaram b, Dushyanth V. Babu R c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Ecole Centrale College of Engineering, Mahindra University, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Rajiv Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology, India
c
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, FET-JAIN (Deemed to be University), India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: During severe seismic events, the dynamic response of the structure is affected not only by the behavior of the
Soil-structure interaction superstructure but also by the nature and behavior of the soil present in and around the substructure. The con-
Displacement response ventional structural design process usually assumes the base of the foundation to be completely restrained, i.e., in
Finite element method
a fixed condition. However, this assumption is inaccurate as it neglects the effect of flexibility offered by the
Winkler's approach
Pseudo-coupled approach
interaction of the soil with the structure. There is no clear consensus on either the beneficial or detrimental effects
of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the seismic response of structures. The main objective of this paper is to study
the effect of SSI on a multi-story (G þ 10) building resting on a mat foundation. The building is modeled using
Finite Element Method (FEM) software and SSI is incorporated using Winkler's (un-coupled) and pseudo-coupled
approaches. A case study is done to understand the non-linear dynamic response of building with different soil
bearing capacities. The results are represented in terms of fundamental period, base shear, and story drift.

1. Introduction P-△ effect, which results in the instability of the whole structure.
Further, some researchers have observed that the flexible base condition
The foundations of buildings are often rested in soil, i.e. they are modifies the response of the building in comparison to the fixed base
flexible bases. However, the traditional method of evaluation of any condition and results in the decrease of stiffness of the structure and
building assumes the base of the building to be rigid (fixed) which is a reduced response spectrum (Pekelnicky et al., 2012). Studies have also
crude assumption as in reality, the local soil condition has a profound been performed to examine the effect of SSI on Single-Degree-of-Freedom
effect on the response of the structure, e.g., as seen in the 1985 Mexico (SDOF) systems and Multi-Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) systems (Yao,
City earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Following the 2010; Matinmanesh and Asheghabadi, 2011; Pekelnicky et al., 2012).
observed destruction of the structures due to recent significant earth- Other studies (Ganjavi and Hao, 2012; Wolf and Obernhuber, 1985)
quakes, the seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI) of multi-story build- observed some new dynamic characteristics, i.e., an increase in the
ings has become extremely relevant (Abdel Raheem, 2013; Yao, 2010). fundamental period and reduced base shears. The main reason for these
Several analytical methods are now being established to carry out anal- observations is that a part of the vibrational energy of the flexible base
ysis using SSI (Matinmanesh and Asheghabadi, 2011). Kausel (2009) structure is degenerated by stress wave radiation and hysteretic action in
provides a comprehensive overview of SSI's early history for interested the supporting medium (Figini, 2010).
readers. However, there is no consensus among researchers or practi- The effect of SSI is more prominent on soft soil as compared to me-
tioners about the beneficial or detrimental effects of SSI. Some studies dium and hard soil (Akkar and Metin, 2007). Seismic waves propagating
(Elnashai and McClure, 1996; Ciampoli and Pinto, 1995; Gazetas et al., through the near-field show more amplification than the far-field due to
2003) have reported advantageous SSI effects, while others (Bielak, material and geometrical nonlinearity (Abdel Raheem et al., 2014a).
1978; Priestley and Park, 1987; Gazetas, 2006) have shown opposite Further, the surface geology appears to have been a primary factor
results. The reduction in base shear may be beneficial, however, an in- influencing the damage distribution (Teves-Costa et al., 2007). For the
crease in inter-story drift and displacement results in secondary moments interpretation of seismic recordings in structures, Maria I. Todorovska

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F.M. Wani), [email protected] (J. Vemuri), [email protected]
(C. Rajaram), [email protected] (D.V. Babu R).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2022.11.002
Received 18 May 2022; Received in revised form 9 November 2022; Accepted 9 November 2022
Available online 14 November 2022
2666-5921/© 2022 National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

(2009) explained the interaction of structural and soil vibration. Tradi- approaches. The objective of the current study is to understand the effect
tional methods to model the subgrade modulus were found to be a poor of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on multi-story buildings subjected to
approximation of the observed behavior as they use a constant subgrade nonlinear dynamic time history analysis. In this investigation, the effect
modulus throughout the mat (Winkler's hypothesis and rigid method). of SSI on structural response using Winkler's spring (un-coupled
Some of the new studies have exhibited improvement by varying the approach), pseudo-coupled, and direct approaches are examined.
modulus of subgrade from center to edges, e.g. the Pasternak Subgrade Fundamental period, base shear, story drift, and displacement are eval-
method and Discrete Area method. It has been suggested that the use of a uated and the results of the analysis are compared with the results from
single modulus of subgrade should be discontinued and there is a need the fixed base frame. Further, the effect of stiffness with damping ratio
for close collaboration among structural and geotechnical engineers to using FEMA 440 is studied (FEMA-440, 2005). Finally, a clear compari-
determine the exact and precise value of Ks (Horvath, 1993). The soil son of various modelling approaches is lacking in the literature. Various
material damping is more pronounced in soft soil and slender structures. researchers have adopted a variety of Winkler's springs to model
The soil damping ratio suggested by FEMA 440 neglects material soil-structure interaction. However, Winkler's method, although simple
damping (FEMA-440, 2005). Julio A. García (2008) estimated the com- in nature, is not accurate as it does not precisely capture deflections,
bined soil damping using the half-power bandwidth method. Various especially for the sub-structure. Hence, to understand the effect of
models have been used to carry out SSI such as finite element and finite various modelling techniques, a comparison of results for both the
boundary. However, these methods are time-consuming, hence, struc- sub-structure and the super-structure is imperative. These are presented
tural engineers find them laborious to use in analysis and design. The in the current study, where results for a G þ 10 reinforced concrete
discrete models, such as cone models, are providing significant results building, are obtained using three different approaches, i.e. Winkler's
with acceptable deviation (Wolf and Deeks, 2004). Furthermore, some springs, pseudo-coupled approach, and finite element techniques.
studies indicate that incorporating SSI leads to a reduction in response
reduction factors in soft soil (Eser et al., 2011). From the literature, it is 2. Modelling soil-structure interaction
unclear if the effect of SSI is beneficial or detrimental. An increase in
flexibility due to SSI causes the fundamental period of the structure to In this study, a multi-story building (Gþ10) has been analyzed to
increase. Usually, an increase in the period of the structure causes a examine the effect of a flexible base on the super and sub-structure as
reduction in the response spectra thus indicating a beneficial effect. shown in Fig. 1(a, b). The building was modeled in finite element soft-
However, an increase in time period of the structure is sometimes also ware as per Indian Standards (IS 1893, 2002; IS. 456, 2000; IS: 875 (Part
accompanied by an increase in the period of the seismic wave, especially I), 1987; IS: 875 (Part 2), 1987). The soil-structure interaction was
in soft soils, thereby causing the structure to be vulnerable under reso- incorporated using a 1D set of equal but jointly independent, closely
nance with such long-period waves. Most seismic codes provide no sig- spaced, separate, and linearly elastic springs uniform Winkler's spring at
nificant guidance on the design of structures by incorporating the effect the base (Chandra, 2014). Winkler suggested a model in which the cor-
of SSI, e.g., the Indian (IS, 1893), Japanese (JSCE-15), New Zealand (NZS relation between contact pressure, P, at any given point and vertical
1170-5), and European (EN, 1998-1 and 1988-5). Only limited provisions settlement, y, is determined by the coefficient of subgrade response (Ks)
are available in the ASCE 7-16: where a reduction in base shear is rec- as shown in Fig. 2. According to Winkler's idealization, foundation
ommended for structures with high inelastic deformation capacity. deformation due to applied load is restricted to loaded areas only. The
The above observations indicate that there are only limited studies on primary concern surrounding the Winkler hypothesis is the estimation of
SSI and a detailed investigation of reinforced concrete structures, which the coefficient of subgrade, which is used to compute the stiffness of
comprise the bulk of designed and constructed structures, is needed. springs; this coefficient depends not only on the type of the subgrade but
There is also a clear need to examine the effect of SSI on various struc- also on the size of the loaded area. In this study, the subsoil is replaced by
tural response parameters and critically examine the veracity of various fictitious springs with stiffness, Ks. The modulus of subgrade reaction is

Fig. 1. a) 3D Representation of multi-story building with fixed base condition b) 3-D representation of multi-story building using 1-D Winkler's springs at the base of
the foundation.

305
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 2. Representation of Winkler's spring hypothesis.

obtained from the literature (Kramer, 1996). Both kinematic and inertial
Table 2
interaction have been accounted for by adopting the direct approach of
Material specification.
modeling the soil and structure in a single step (Abdel Raheem et al.,
2014b). The software first calculates the tributary area at each node and Properties Data

then multiplies each tributary area with a modulus of subgrade reaction. Grade of concrete, M25 fck ¼ 30N/mm2
The maximum spring constant is provided at the center while having Grade of steel fy ¼ 500N/mm2
Density of brick ϒ brick ¼ 22 kN/m3
smaller values towards the ends, as the area of the tributary is less to-
Density of concrete ϒ concrete ¼ 25 kN/m3
wards the end. The springs were taken as compression-only since the
foundation concrete is assumed not to take tension. The description of
the building and material specification is given in Table 1 and Table 2 2.1. Soil-structure interaction using finite element model
respectively. Nonlinear dynamic time history (NTHA) analysis using May
18, 1940, El Centro earthquake is used to examine the importance of SSI. In this section, a description of the realistic modelling of soil using the
The characteristics of the El Centro earthquake are depicted in Fig. 3. In isotropic-Mohr-columb material model is provided. The building is
NTHA, the dynamic equilibrium equation of motion is fully integrated as exported to the Geotechnical software with the same properties as
the structure is subjected to dynamic loading. The analysis entails the described in Tables 1 and 2. The different set of parameters used to model
integration of structural features and behaviors over a short period the soil is taken from the previous literature e.g. modulus of elasticity, and
compared to the loading duration. Nonlinearity is primarily caused due Poisson ratio shown in Table 3. The soil is assumed to be an anisotropic,
to changes in the stiffness matrix, [k] since the stiffness characteristics of homogeneous, linearly elastic soil medium. The vertical translation is
several members degrade with time steps, during an inelastic seismic constrained at the bottom boundary while lateral translation has been
analysis. The dynamic equilibrium equation for a damped MDOF system constrained at vertical boundaries. Fig. 5(a, b) represents the 3-D view of
subjected to ground motion is: the building and modeling of soil using the finite element approach.
 
½M u€t þ ½cfu_t g þ ½kfut g ¼ fftg (1) 2.2. Soil-structure interaction using pseudo-coupled approach

where M, C, K are mass, damping and stiffness matrix, and u€t ; u_t , ut , f{t} To overcome the constraints of Winkler's method, a non-uniform
are acceleration, velocity, displacement and seismic input excitation stiffness technique was used to examine the effect of SSI on the multi-
time-dependent vectors, respectively story building. By employing the spring analogy, it can be demonstrated
Due to the uncertainty in seismic demand and structural capacity, it is that the independent nature of the springs in Winkler's hypothesis is in-
impossible to exactly forecast the impact of ground motions on the dependent (uncoupled). However, when a load is applied to one area,
structures since it depends on many factors like the type of soil, faults settlement takes place at several sites (coupled). Although the coupled
mechanism, and seismic wave propagation. A site response study can be approach is more accurate than the single parameter Winkler's spring, it
used to quantify the impact of local soil characteristics on seismic motion. is more difficult to use in common structural analysis software since it
Site response evaluations for various types of soil are carried out in this also takes into account mechanical components in addition to Winkler
regard. as shown in Fig. 4, i,e Hard soil, Medium soil, and Soft soil. This springs. "Pseudo-coupled" subgrade models have just lately been con-
study assumes that earthquake ground motions occur at the bedrock. The structed to maintain the familiar mathematical and modelling simplicity
soft soil is more amplified as compared to hard soil due to softer char- of Winkler's hypothesis with a constant coefficient of subgrade reaction
acteristics. It can be seen there is no shift in the fundamental frequency while still producing more accurate findings. The foundation mat is
but the frequency is amplified as the flexibility of the soil increases. The divided into two or more rectangular zones as shown in Fig. 6, and
response of soil also depends on the shear velocity of soil; the greater the implemented according to Eq. (2) from ACI. The Ks value assigned to
velocity’ lesser will be the response amplification. each zone progressively increases from the center to the outer zone.
Values of Ks in the outermost zone should be about twice as large as the
innermost zone as shown in Table 4.
Table 1
Building Description of the model. A1(Ks)1þA2(Ks)2þA3(Ks)3¼ (A1þA2þA3) (Ks)avg (2)
Description Data

Length  Width 16 m  16 m
No. of storeys 12
3. Seismic response demands
Height of similar storey 3.2 m
Height of parapet wall 1m
Thickness of outer wall 230 mm To further understand the behavior of soil-structure interaction,
Thickness of inner wall 150 mm different seismic demand parameters like fundamental period, story
Beam dimension 500 mm  300 mm shear, and inter-story drift were evaluated and compared with flexible
Column dimension 600 mm  450 mm
base.

306
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 3. Characteristics of El Centro ground motion May 18, 1940.

Fig. 4. Site amplification response of multi-story buildings for various types of soil.

stiffness of the buildings decreases (Abdel Raheem et al., 2014b). It can

Table 3
be seen that as the flexibility of soil increases, there is an increase in the
Soil properties.
period of the structure. Fig. 7 represents the variation of the period (first
Soil type Shear modulus (kN/ Elastic modulus (kN/ Poisson ratio mode) for different types of soil with fixed base and flexible base
m2 ) m2) (μ)
conditions.
Hard soil 30000 72000 0.2
Medium 20000 50000 0.25 3.2. Story shear
soil
Soft soil 10000 26000 0.3
This section explains the influence of the foundation and underneath
soil stiffness on the base shear of the multi-storey, which is the most
3.1. Natural period important parameter in the seismic design practice. It can be seen that as
the soil flexibility increases, there is a decrease in the base shear as shown
This section focuses on the variation of fundamental period with in Fig. 8. The reduction of base shear is observed more in soft soil and is
different types of soil. The fundamental period in IS1893 (Part 1):2016 sensitive to the foundation soil flexibility (NIST, 2012). Mathematically
(IS 1893, 2002), T, underestimates the period of the structures, as it is the base shear is given by Eq. (3)
solely dependent on building height and is not affected by changes in SSI.
The available computational tools considering the fixed base analysis Base shear ¼ Vfix – ΔV (3)
uses stiffness and height of the structure to determine the period where ΔV signifies the change in base shear; function of the period
(neglecting SSI), which yields the same period for all soil types. It can be lengthening and damping ratio and V fix represents the base shear of fixed
observed that by considering SSI, there is an increase in the period from base.
hard soil to soft soil. The fundamental period increases as the soil-spring

307
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 5. a) 3-D representation of multi-story building b) Modelling of soil using 3-D FEM solid elements.

Fig. 9 shows the variation of story drifts for a fixed base. The story drift
distribution for the building increases gradually and reaches its
maximum value in the 2nd storey, and then decreases towards the end.
The story drift of the structure is compared with those from flexible
base with different ranges of soil. It is noted that story drift is more
pronounced in flexible bases with soft soil (0.0304 m). When SSI is
considered, the storey drift increases towards the end as compared to the
fixed base condition. Fig. 10 (a,b,c) show the comparison of story drift for
a flexible and fixed base. The story drifts due to medium and soft soil
increases in the higher stories, signifying the influence of SSI on the
building.
Fig. 6. Division of mat foundation according to ACI.

3.4. Flexible damping ratio

Table 4
Modulus of subgrade. In this section, the effect of combined damping (soil þ structure) has
Different zones of mat Modulus of Sub grade (kN/m3)
been examined. The total damping consists of structural viscous damping
and soil damping (material damping and radiation damping). The
(Ks)1 7524
structural damping is often assumed to be 5% (experimentally it is lower
(Ks)2 11286
(Ks)3 15048 than 5%) whereas soil damping increases from hard to soft soil. An ac-
curate estimate for computing the damping for the entire system can only
be done through experimental measurement, however, for the purpose of
3.3. Story drift this study, the guidelines provided from the FEMA 440 (FEMA-440,
2005) have been utilized, for investigating the effect of SSI on the
Story drift is defined as the relative lateral displacement of each floor structure. The formulation for computing the damping ratio is given by
divided by the height of the same floor. It can be seen that the story drift using the equation (Yao, 2010). The initial damping of structure,
increases as there is a change in the soil type from stiff to medium to soft. neglecting the damping of soil is taken as Bi 5%. The overall damping of

Fig. 7. Variation of the period (first mode) for different types of soil with fixed base and flexible base condition.

308
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 8. Comparison of the base shear for different types of soil with fixed base and flexible base condition.

Fig. 9. Variation of story drifts for different types of soil with a fixed base.

the system is referred to as Bo. The change in damping ratio from Bi to Bo evenly loaded flexible foundation takes the shape of a bowl or trough
results in the modification of the elastic response spectrum of the (Bowles, 1988; Mesri et al., 1996). The deflection of the mat observed is
structure. not realistic i.e. (maximum in the center and minimum toward the end).
The reason for this behavior is the uncoupled springs by the Winkler
Bi hypothesis.
B 0 ¼ Bf þ (4)
ðT’eq=TeqÞ3
3.6. Effect of pseudo-coupled approach
where.

In this section, the outcomes of Pseudo-Coupled Approach are

Bi ¼ Fixed-base damping ratio of the structure
compared with the uniform spring constant (Winkler's) and the fixed base
Bf ¼ Foundation damping due to radiation damping
T’eq=Teq ¼ Period lengthening ratio condition. It is observed that the response parameters of the super-
Table 5 shows the different parameters for computing the flexible structure are similar to those obtained from the uniform spring approach
base damping ratio. The period lengthening ratio T/T0 , is the most as shown in Fig. 14 (a, b, c). However, the deflection in mat foundation
important parameter influencing the strength of the SSI effect. The using the Pseudo coupled approach is more realistic, as the springs are
damping ratio increases when the period lengthening ratio (T'/T) in- coupled in this case as shown in Fig. 15 (a). The pseudo-coupled
creases, i.e. (hard soil to soft soil). It is observed from Fig. 11 that approach is able to capture the realistic deflection shape of the mat
considering the soil-structure interaction results in an increase in the foundation i.e. maximum in the center and minimum toward the end. By
damping ratio up to 5.6%. Further the effect of H/VsT ratio is observed to using the pseudo–coupled approach, the sub-structure can provide a
be significant on the period lengthening ratio i.e. an increase is observed more precise shape as compared to the Winkler's uniform spring. As a
(hard soil to soft soil) as shown in Fig. 12. result, utilizing a pseudo-coupled technique yielded more accurate re-
sults in both sub and superstructures.
Further deflection of mat foundation using the Pseudo – coupled
3.5. Deflection of mat foundation approach is compared with FEM model to examine its accuracy. The
settlement profile in Fig. 15 (b) depicts the settlement behavior of the
In this section, the deflection of the mat foundation is examined by mat foundation, with the maximum settlement at the center i.e. mini-
considering the Winkler spring with uniform stiffness throughout the mum stiffness at the center and maximum toward the end. When
mat. It is observed from Fig. 13 that the uniform stiffness fails to fully comparing the actual settlement diagram with the Winkler's linear spring
capture the deflection in the mat foundation. The settlement profile of an and pseudo-coupled approach, it is found that the pseudo-coupled

309
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 10. a) Comparison of story drift a medium soil b) soft soil c) Hard soil for fixed base condition (NSSI) and flexible base condition (SSI).

corner.
Table 5
Different parameters used for computing flexible base damping ratio.
Parameters Hard Soil Medium Soil Soft Soil
3.7. Effect of height and shape of building

h/r 1.56 1.56 1.56

a) Effect of structural height.
T’eq= Teq 1 1.06 1.1
Bf 0 1.1 1.9 In this section, an attempt has been made to study the effect of
Bi 5 5 5 structural height, with and without SSI, so as to investigate the response
Bo 5.0 5.30 5.66 of the structure on soft soil. Two buildings of different heights are taken
into consideration (Gþ10 and Gþ4) as shown in Fig. 16 (a, b). It is
observed that when SSI is taken into consideration, there is an increase in
approach provides a more realistic and accurate settlement behavior. It
the period [2.22 to 2.4 (sec) for building (a) and from 0.998 to 1.05 (sec)
can be concluded that the larger central portion of the mat has constant
for building (b)] and a decrease in the frequency for both the structures
stiffness which increases sharply toward the edges, especially toward the
[building (a) 0.43 to 0.41 (Hz) and for building (b) from 1.01 to 0.91

Fig. 11. Comparison of damping ratio for flexible base and fixed base for different type of soils.

310
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 12. Soil structure system period for a different type of soil.

horizontal movement and rotation of the foundation can increase the

structural drifts and the foundation motion can be substantially different
from free-field motion due to inertial and kinematic effects (Far, 2019a;
Tabatabaiefar and Clifton, 2016; Anand and Satish Kumar, 2018). It has
also been known that the damping ratio can be affected since a sub-
stantial part of the energy is dissipated into the soil, either by radiation
damping by wave propagation or by hysteresis damping of the soil ma-
terial (Wolf, 1985). The effect of SSI can be significant in high-rise
structures when considering performance-based seismic design (Samali
et al., 2011). Recent numerical simulations on high-rise buildings indi-
cate that SSI influences the distribution of shear forces in the structure
Fig. 13. Deflection pattern of mat foundation using uniform 1 D win- and it has been observed that inter-story drifts, floor accelerations and
kler's spring. consequently economic losses also increased due to SSI (Arboleda-
Monsalve et al., 2020). Observations from these recent studies indicate
(Hz)]. Further, displacement of roof level is computed with and without that the effect of SSI on structural response cannot be neglected and the
SSI and it is observed that displacement increases with the increase in lack of consensus, mandates further studies on its effect on multi-story
height of the structure in both cases. In Building (a), it is increased from buildings.
0.177 to 0.23 m when the SSI is considered, while in Building (b), the In the present study, the effect on a typical multi-story building
displacement of the building decreased from 0.0019 to 0.0017 (Fig. 17). resting on a raft foundation is examined considering the seismic SSI. The
It can be concluded that high-rise structures on soft soil are more SSI is incorporated using three techniques: Winkler's, FEM, and Pseudo-
impacted by SSI as compared to low-rise structures. coupled approach. The effect of SSI on the multi-story building is
assessed through comparison with the results obtained with those from
b) Effect of Varying Structural Shape. fixed base assumptions. For all the approaches, it was observed that
period of the structure increases as the soil-spring stiffness of the build-
In this section, the effect of structural shape on the response of ings decreases. The empirical expressions from the Indian Seismic Design
buildings, with fixed and flexible base, has been examined on soft soil. Code, i.e. IS1893 (Part 1):2016 for computing the period of the structure,
Two buildings of different shapes are taken into consideration as shown results in shorter periods as compared to different SSI models, particu-
in Fig. 18 (a, b). It is observed when SSI is taken into consideration, there larly for structures built on soft soil. Other seismic parameters such as
is an increase in the period [2.22 to 2.4 (sec) for building for (a) and from story drift and base shear were also evaluated and compared to the
1.49 to 1.58 (sec) for building (b)]and a decrease in frequency for both typical assumption in which SSI interaction would be neglected,
the structures [(0.43–0.41 (Hz) building for (a) and from 0.68 to 0.63 revealing the significant influence of the SSI on the building. The
(Hz) building for (b)]. Further, the displacement of the roof level is reduction of base shear considering the flexibility of soil is one of the
computed, with and without SSI, and it is observed that displacement at beneficial effects of SSI, however, the shear distribution in top stories
roof level is reduced for building (b) due to a change in the stiffness of the being almost similar may change the performance level of the building
building (i.e. change in shape) for both the cases. On considering SSI, from safe to near collapse. The response parameters for the superstruc-
displacement of buildings (a) at roof level is increased (from 0.177 to ture, as obtained from both Winkler's and Pseudo-coupled approaches
0.23 m), while displacement is reduced for building (b) (from 0.12 to were similar. Also, due to the coupling of the springs in pseudo coupled
0.108 m) as shown in Fig. 19. technique, the deflection in the mat foundation was found to be realistic.
Further, the parametric study on the effect of different heights and shapes
4. Scientific discussion of the structure, with SSI and without SSI, was evaluated, and it was
observed that high-rise structures on soft soil are more impacted by SSI as
The analysis and design of structures across the world, continue to compared to low-rise structures.
usually assume the structural supports to be fixed/rigid, since conven- In general, the incorporation of SSI results leads to higher periods and
tionally it has been believed that the effect of soil-structure interaction greater seismic damage, as has been observed for case studies on RC
(SSI) is beneficial as the stiffness of the system usually decreases due to buildings by previous researchers. Consequently, it is possible to over-
the increase in the degrees of freedom, thereby lengthening the funda- estimate the initial strength capacities of the structures if the SSI effects
mental period of the structure (Veletsos and Meek, 1974). However, are ignored. The dynamic response of the structure is usually not
some recent studies indicate that the SSI effect can be substantial, as the considerably influenced due to stiff soil conditions, and in such cases, the
structure can be examined using the fixed base condition. However, due

311
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 14. (a, b,c) Comparison of the period, base shear, and story drift for soft soil with the fixed and flexible base conditions.

Fig. 15. a) Displacements cartography of mat using 3-D FEM solid element b) Displacements cartography of mat foundation using pseudo coupled springs method.

to the interaction between the soil and the structure when it is supported when those building frames are resting on soft soil.
by a flexible medium, its dynamic response will differ from the fixed base This study used three approaches to incorporating the effect of SSI on
condition. Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate SSI while designing mid- a multi-story building. However, the research work can be extended by
rise moment-resisting building frames for seismic design, especially considering other available SSI models in the literature, and with

312
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 16. (a, b) Description of the buildings used for the case study.

Fig. 17. Comparison of displacement at roof level for two different buildings (a, b). a) Building with fixed base b) building with flexible base Note the Red dashed line
represents the Gþ10 building and blue bold line represents Gþ5 building.

Fig. 18. (a, b) Description of the buildings used for the case study.

313
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Fig. 19. Comparison of displacement at roof level for two different buildings (a, b); a) Building with fixed base b) building with flexible base Note Blue dashed line
represents building (a) and bold orange line represents building (b).

different structural configurations, to further comprehend the obtained Acknowledgments

results.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mahindra University for its
5. Conclusions support in carrying out this study.

Seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete structures typically con- References

siders only the superstructure and neglects the flexibility of foundations.
However, the dynamic characteristics of structural response are affected Abdel Raheem, S.E., 2013. Evaluation of Egyptian code provisions for seismic design of
moment resisting frames multi-story buildings. Int. J. Adv. Struc. Eng. 5 (20), 1–18.
by soil-structure interaction. This paper presented results from a Abdel Raheem, S.E., Ahmed, M.M., Alazrak, T.M., 2014a. Soil-raft foundation-structure
nonlinear time history analysis of a Gþ10 reinforced concrete building interaction effects on seismic performance of multi-story MRF buildings. Eng. Struct.
considering the effects of soil-structure interaction. The soil-structure Technol. 6 (2), 43–61.
Abdel Raheem, S.E., Ahmed, M.M., Alazrak, T., 2014b. Soil-structure interaction effects
interaction is modeled using Winkler's approach. From the results, it is on seismic response of multi-story buildings on raft foundation. JES. J. Eng. Sci. 42
observed that using Winkler's hypothesis with a constant coefficient of (4), 905–930.
subgrade reaction does not produce accurate estimates of settlements. It Akkar, S., Metin, A., 2007. Assessment of improved nonlinear static procedures in FEMA-
440. J. Struct. Eng. 133 (9), 1237–1246.
is also observed that the period of the building increases with an increase Anand, V., Satish Kumar, S.R., 2018. Seismic soil-structure interaction: a state-of-the-art
in the stiffness of springs. The period of the building is maximum in the review. Structures 16, 317–326.
case of soft soil as compared to the fixed base condition. The base shear Arboleda-Monsalve, L.G., Mercado, J.A., Terzic, V., Mackie, K.R., 2020. Soil-structure
interaction effects on seismic performance and earthquake-induced losses in tall
for the case of a flexible base decreases by 10% when compared to the
buildings. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 146 (5), 04020028.
case of a fixed base. The story drifts due to medium and soft soil increases Bielak, J., 1978. Dynamic response of non-linear building-foundation systems. Earthq.
in the higher stories. The maximum drift was observed in the middle Eng. Struct. Dynam. 6 (1), 17–30.
stories. These results were also compared with those obtained from the Bowles, J.E., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design.
Chandra, S., 2014. Modelling of Soil Behaviour, 3. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,
alternate pseudo-coupled approach. Overall, the observations indicate p. 12.
that the effect of SSI should be incorporated in the case of soft soil, Ciampoli, M., Pinto, P.E., 1995. Effects of soil-structure interaction on inelastic seismic
otherwise, it could lead to reduced accuracy in our assessment of the response of bridge piers. J. Struct. Eng. 121 (5), 806–814.
Elnashai, A.S., McClure, D.C., 1996. Effect of modelling assumptions and input motion
overall structural safety under severe earthquakes. Further, the use of a characteristics on seismic design parameters of RC bridge piers. Earthq. Eng. Struct.
single modulus of subgrade could be discontinued. It is further observed Dynam. 25 (5), 435–463.
that a proper assessment of the modulus of subgrade reaction is impor- Eser, M., Aydemir, C., Ekiz, I., 2011. Effects of soil structure interaction on strength
reduction factors. Procedia Eng. 14, 1696–1704.
tant in Winkler's spring approach. The best way to estimate the modulus Far, H., 2019. Advanced computation methods for soil structure interaction analysis of
of subgrade reaction is by performing studies on determining SSI using structures resting on soft soils. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 13 (4), 352–359.
geotechnical field investigations and geotechnical software and then FEMA-440, 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Applied
Technology Council (ATC-55 Project). Federal Emergency Management Agency,
performing the inverse analysis. Further, the parametric analysis by Washington, DC.
varying the height and shape of structure, with and without SSI, revealed Figini, R., 2010. Nonlinear Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction: Application to Seismic
that high-rise structures on soft soil are more affected by SSI than low-rise Analysis and Design of Structures on Shallow Foundations. PhD thesis. Politecnico di
Milano.
structures.
Ganjavi, B., Hao, H., 2012. Ductility reduction factor for multi-degree-offreedom systems
with soil-structure interaction. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Declaration of competing interest Engineering.
García, J.A., 2008. Soil structure interaction in the analysis and seismic design of
reinforced concrete frame buildings. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth World
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–9.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Gazetas, G., 2006. Seismic Design of Foundations and Soil-Structure Interaction. 1st Eur
the work reported in this paper. Conf on Earthq Eng and Seismology, Geneva.
Gazetas, G., Apostolou, M., Anastasopoulos, I., 2003. Seismic Uplifting of Foundations on
Soft Soil, with Examples from Adapazari (Izmit 1999, Earthquake). BGA Int Conf on
Found Innov, Observations, Design & Practice. Univ. of Dundee, Scotland, pp. 37–50.

314
F.M. Wani et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 304–315

Horvath, J.S., 1993. Cut-and-cover Tunnel Subgrade Modeling. Transportation research Samali, B., Fatahi, B., Far, H., 2011. Seismic behaviour of concrete moment resisting
record, p. 1415. buildings on soft soil considering soil-structure interaction. In: Proceedings of the
IS 1893 (Part 1), 2002. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of 21st Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials.
Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. ACMSM21), pp. 407–412.
IS. 456, 2000. Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice. Bureau Tabatabaiefar, H.R., Clifton, T., 2016. Significance of considering soil-structure
of Indian Standards, New Delhi. interaction effects on seismic design of unbraced building frames resting on soft soils.
IS: 875 (Part 2), 1987. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Aust. Geomech J. 51 (1), 55–64.
Earthquake) (Imposed Loads) for Buildings and Structures. Bureau of Indian Teves-Costa, P., Oliveira, C.S., Senos, M.L., 2007. Effects of local site and building
Standards, New Delhi. parameters on damage distribution in Angra do Heroísmo-Azores. Soil Dynam.
IS: 875 (Part I), 1987. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthq. Eng. 27 (11), 986–999.
Earthquake) (Dead Loads) for Buildings and Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, Todorovska, M.I., 2009. Seismic interferometry of a soil-structure interaction model with
New Delhi. coupled horizontal and rocking response. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99 (2A), 611–625.
Kausel, E., 2009. Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. Veletsos, A.S., Meek, J.W., 1974. Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.11.001. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 3, 121–138.
Kramer, S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pearson Education India. Wolf, J.P., 1985. Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
Matinmanesh, H., Asheghabadi, M.S., 2011. Seismic analysis on soil-structure interaction New Jersey.
of buildings over sandy soil. Procedia Eng. 14, 1737–1743. Wolf, J.P., Deeks, A.J., 2004. Foundation Vibration Analysis: A Strength of Materials
Mesri, G., Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Wiley. Approach. Elsevier.
NIST, N., 2012. Soil-structure-interaction for Building Structures (Nist Gcr 12-917-21). Wolf, J.P., Obernhuber, P., 1985. Non-linear soil-structure-interaction analysis using
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899. dynamic stiffness or flexibility of soil in the time domain. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam.
Pekelnicky, R., Engineers, S.D., Chris Poland, S.E., Engineers, N.D., 2012. ASCE 41-13: 13 (2), 195–212.
seismic evaluation and retrofit rehabilitation of existing buildings. Proceedings of the Yao, M.M., 2010. Earthquake Wave-Soil- Structure Interaction Analysis of Tall Buildings.
SEAOC. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Victoria, Canada. AAT NR74121.
Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R., 1987. Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under
seismic loading. ACI Struct. J. 84.

315