Materials Today: Proceedings 43 (2021) 2250–2254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Study on the effects of seismic soil-structure interaction of concrete

buildings resting on hill slopes
Sahil Abbas Zaidi ⇑, Tabassum Naqvi, Syed Muhammad Ibrahim
Department of Civil Engineering, A.M.U., Aligarh 202002, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to the irregularity and asymmetry of the hill buildings, the centre of mass and the centre of stiffness
Received 9 June 2020 of the buildings do not coincide and the buildings are subjected to greater shear and torsion. The present
Received in revised form 4 December 2020 study is undertaken to observe the soil-structure interaction effect on a 4 storey RC building resting on
Accepted 13 December 2020
hill slopes. The considered building rests on three different slopes. The ground slope is varied as 0⁰, 15⁰
Available online 19 February 2021
and 27⁰. The considered buildings have been modelled and analysed in SAP2000 software. The considered
building models are subjected to earthquake forces. A nonlinear static pushover analysis is performed on
Keywords:
the considered building models. The results obtained from the analysis in terms of base shear and dis-
Soil-structure interaction
Buildings on hill slopes
placement at the performance point are then compared within the considered configurations of the
Irregular buildings building. It is observed that the response of the structure reduces to a much significant amount when
Pushover analysis the effect of soil-structure interaction is considered. Hence, it is concluded that the effect of soil-
structure interaction must be considered while designing a building. By doing so, the structure can be
designed for a much lower capacity resulting in an economical design.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advanced Materials Behavior and Characterization.

1. Introduction The buildings in the hilly regions are generally very irregular
and asymmetric. Due to the irregularity and asymmetry which is
According to the geographical statistics of India almost 54% of associated with the hill buildings, the centre of mass of buildings
the land is vulnerable to earthquake. The Indian subcontinent is and their centre of rigidity do not coincide resulting in excessive
driving into Asia at an approximate rate of 47 mm / year. Earth- shear and torsion. Stepback, Setback and Stepback-Setback are
quake is most destructive among all the natural hazards. Its impact three common building configurations adopted in hilly regions.
is the most traumatic because a large area is affected by it. Earth- Birajdar and Nalawade [1] analysed the seismic behaviour of 24
quakes occur because of a sudden and transient motion of earth reinforced concrete buildings having three different geometries
due to a release of an enormous amount of energy which is elastic i.e., Stepback building, Stepback-Setback building and Setback
in nature. Earthquakes generally causes a huge loss of life, prop- building and found the Step-back-Setback configuration to be more
erty, and it also interrupts various useful services such as water suitable on sloping ground. Zaid Mohammad et al. [2] conducted a
services like sewerage systems, water supply, power and commu- study on two different hill building configurations i.e., stepback
nication services, transport services etc. which in turn destabilizes and stepback-setback type subjected to seismic loads. The build-
the social and economic structure of the country. Since the prob- ings varied in height and length. They found that the stepback-
lem is usually non – linear and dynamic and the input data (i.e., setback type buildings to be much less vulnerable to earthquake
ground motions and structural properties) are very uncertain and as compared to stepback buildings because of the less seismic
random, the structural analysis of earthquake engineering weight of stepback-setback buildings. Rao and Ramhmachhuani
becomes a difficult task.Fig. 1. [3] performed a study focusing on how the care should be taken
of the design loads when constructing structures on hill slopes.
They found the shear wave velocity by conducting a site-specific
geophysical investigation at hill slopes at trans-Himalayan region
⇑ Corresponding author. of the capital city of Mizoram, Aizawl, thus compared the site-
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Zaidi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.532
2214-7853/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advanced Materials Behavior and Characterization.
S.A. Zaidi, T. Naqvi and S.M. Ibrahim Materials Today: Proceedings 43 (2021) 2250–2254

estimation of the seismic demands of a structure therefore, the

design must be reviewed with more care for critical facilities like
nuclear power plants. Prishati Raychowdhury & Samit Ray-
Chaudhuri (2015) [7] investigated the effect of nonlinear soil-
structure interaction on the seismic response of the non-
structural acceleration sensitive components attached to a 4-
storey steel moment resisting frame and observed that the non-
linear soil-structure interaction effect is beneficial to the response
of non-structural components of the chosen structure. Vivek and
Raychowdhury [6] investigated the influence of soil-structure
Fig. 1. Four storey building on 15⁰ sloping ground with (a) fixed base; (b) flexible interaction on the damping and period of steel moment-resisting
base. frame buildings which are affirmed by shallow footings on deposits
of dry sand. They conducted a number of impact hammer tests on a
3-storey and 6-storey model steel frames with varying base condi-
specific ground response for the same with current codal provision. tions i.e., loose and dense beds of sand, surface footings and
Though IS1893 has assigned an acceleration of 0.36 g for the entire embedded footings, lightly and heavily loaded footings to com-
area, they found from the analysis that peak ground acceleration pletely understand the inertial SSI effects. They observed that short
(PGA) have a huge range and could even go up to 0.48 g at some to medium buildings are more sensitive to SSI effects as compared
location and a much lower 0.25 g at some other locations and to tall ones.
hence suggested that over-designing of structures will not be eco- The present study observes the behavior of a building subjected
nomical, whereas under-designing of structures may result in to seismic loading. The sloping conditions of the considered build-
catastrophic disaster if an earthquake occurs in the region. ing are changed as 0⁰,15⁰ and 27⁰. The effect of soil-structure inter-
Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) is a beneficial effect for a conser- action is considered by replacing the fixed base of foundation by
vative design it can be neglected conveniently. The provisions of equivalent static springs. A non-linear static pushover analysis is
seismic design codes for interaction of soil and structure are gener- performed on the considered configurations of the building and
ally optional which allows the designer to lower the design base the results obtained in terms of base force and displacement at
shear of buildings by taking soil-structure interaction as a benefi- the performance point are then compared within the considered
cial effect. In the SSI provisions, the soil and structure system is building configurations.
replaced by a fixed-base equivalent model having a larger period
and usually a large ratio of damping. Mostly, the codes of design
2. Modelling and analysis
use the design spectra which is oversimplified and has a constant
acceleration value of for a certain time period, which thereafter
2.1. General
monotonically decreases with period. The structure becomes more
flexible by considering soil-structure interaction which in turn
The present study investigates the seismic performance of a 4
increases the natural period of structure in comparison to the same
storey RC building resting on three different sloping conditions.
structure supported rigidly. Also, the effective ratio of damping of
The analysis is carried out by performing non-linear static Push-
the system is increased by considering the SSI effect. Due to SSI,
over analysis and important seismic parameters such as the dis-
smaller seismic response with the increased natural periods and
placement and base force at the performance point are
effective ratio of damping is suggested by the smooth idealization
determined and compared within the considered configurations.
of the design spectrum and is considered to be the main cause of
seismic design codes which allows to lower the design base shear
2.2. Parametric study
while considering the soil-structure interaction. Pandey et al. [4]
studied the effect of SSI on 5 concrete buildings (i.e., 3 stepback
In this study, seismic analysis is conducted on an RC building
and 2 stepback-setback buildings) resting on 270 hill slopes. They
resting on hill slope. All the models have same material properties,
performed pushover analysis as well as response spectrum analysis
and same geometrical properties of the structural elements. The
on the models considered. They concluded that the value of the
different properties and dimensions of various structural elements
displacement at performance point in stepback-setback buildings
present in the models are given in Table 1.
always has a greater value as compared to the elastic displacement
values for all different type of supports whereas in stepback build-
ings the same is perfectly valid in X-direction whereas for the Y- Table 1
direction the validity is only up to 2-storeys and 2-bays in case Geometrical Properties of Different Components of Building.
of hard soil. Lopamudra Bhaumik and Raychowdhury [5] per-
Building components Properties
formed a study on seismic analysis on an internal shear wall of a
Height of floors 3.5 m
typical reactor in India which rests on a medium dense sandy-
Plan dimensions 7m5m
silty soil and incorporated the non-linear characteristic of the Density of the concrete 25 KN/cubic meter
foundation and soil interface. SSI was modelled by using a Beam Poisson’s ratio of concrete 0.3
on Non-linear Winkler Foundation approach. They performed Grade of steel Fe500
pushover and a cyclic analysis followed by an incremental dynamic Damping 0.05
Size of columns 400 mm  500 mm
analysis using thirty recorded ground motions. By conducting the Size of beams 230 mm  500 mm
two analysis they found that on incorporating the soil-structure Slab thickness 150 mm
interaction, the system’s equivalent viscous damping is increased Wall thickness 230 mm
up to two times whereas, base shear and base moment decreases Parapet wall thickness 115 mm
Size of the isolated footing taken 1m1m
and the displacement decreases (in cyclic analysis) and increases
Live load 2 KN/m
(in pushover analysis). They further concluded that neglecting Intensity of roof live load 1.5 KN/m
the soil-structure interaction or even considering the simplified Floor finish load 1 KN/m
linear modelling of soil-structure interaction may not give a proper Partition load 1 KN/m

2251
S.A. Zaidi, T. Naqvi and S.M. Ibrahim Materials Today: Proceedings 43 (2021) 2250–2254

2.2.1. Model formation 2.5. Foundation characteristics

A 4 storey RC building resting on different sloping ground i.e.,
0°, 15° and 27° is modelled using software SAP2000. The structure’s response depends on its interaction with foun-
dation soil. The soil and foundation interaction depends upon the
elastic properties of foundation soil and foundation dimensions.
2.2.2. Material properties and assumptions
The soil-structure interaction is studied by the replacement of
The assumptions made in the analysis are given as follows:
fixed base of building foundation by flexible base by means of pro-
viding equivalent springs. The foundation soil is modelled by using
 The material is assumed to be homogenous, elastic and isotro-
the values of spring constants calculated as per the equations of
pic in nature.
Wolf (1985) as shown in the Table 2 below.
 The modulus of elasticity of concrete is taken as 25000 N/mm2
Where,
and its Poisson’s ratio is assumed as 0.3.
G = Shear modulus of the soil
 The yield stress of the steel used is taken as 500 N/mm2.
 A rigid-frame diaphragm with 3 DOFs per floor is taken in all
m = Poisson’s ratio of the soil
Af = Area of footing
modelled configurations.
R0 = Equivalent radius
 Each nodal point in the frame is having 6 DOFs per node of
Ixf = Moment of inertia of the footing about X-axis
beam element; 3 translational and 3 rotational.
Iyf = Moment of inertia of the footing about Y-axis
 The effect of accidental eccentricity and torsion is considered as
The values of various properties of foundation soils and spring
per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016.
constants as obtained by using equations given by Wolf (1985)
are given in Tables 3 & 4.
2.2.3. Seismic parameters and static loads
The different seismic parameters which are taken in the analy-
sis of the building models are assumed as per IS 1893(Part 1): 3. Results and discussions
2016. The building is assumed to lie in Seismic Zone IV with
0.18 g peak ground acceleration value. The value of importance 3.1. General
factor, I is taken as 1 (for unimportant buildings) and the value
of response reduction factor, R is taken as 3 for OMRF frame. The In the previous section, non-linear static analysis was per-
soil lying beneath the foundation is assumed to be of three types formed on different configurations of the considered building. In
i.e., hard, medium, and soft soil. doing so, parametric study was carried out to assess the seismic
The values of gravity load and imposed load are considered performance of buildings. The results, obtained in the analyses
according to the recommendations given in IS 875 (Part 1 and 2): are presented in this section and discussed in terms of base force
1987. The dead load for masonry walls is assumed for a residential and displacement at the performance point and compared within
building with unit weight of 19.2 kN/m3. The lateral forces acting considered configurations of the building.
because of the earth pressure on columns of foundation does par-
ticipate in calculating the seismic weight of the structure, therefore 3.2. Parametric study
its effect is ignored in the analysis, and only the effect of lateral
seismic forces is observed. All considered building models are ana- In this study, some variations in the configurations of buildings
lyzed, designed and check for any kind of failure of elements and are performed by varying the ground slope. All analytical models
then the size of beams and columns is varied accordingly with
respect to the increasing height of the structure (Table 1). Table 2
Equations for calculating spring constants given by Wolf (1985).

2.3. Hill building with infill panels

Masonry infill panels are non-structural elements and are often

used for partition in RC or steel frame construction. Despite of their
functional use, these infills also affect the response of structure
when subjected to seismic loads. These infills, due to their high
in-plane stiffness, attract more force and dissipate large amount
of energy than the bounding frame. In the present study, the grav-
ity load of infill is considered in the analysis.

2.3.1. Model formation

The length of the model across the slope is kept fixed to single
bay only (5 m). The masonry infill walls of 230 mm thickness are
taken only at the periphery of the building at each storey. These
infill walls are incorporated into analytical models as diagonal
struts with the specification of a truss. The condition of a truss
member is achieved by releasing all the moments at each end;
hence each strut consists only three degrees of freedom (transla- Table 3
tional only) per node at each end of the member. Elastic properties of the foundation soil (Pandey A. D. et. al) [4].

Type of Shear modulus G (KN/ Elastic modulus E (KN/ Poisson’s

2.4. Load patterns soil m2) m2) ratio m
Hard 2700.0 6750.0 0.25
Load patterns are defined for dead, live, roof-live, wall, parapet Medium 451.1 1200.0 0.33
Soft 84.5 250.0 0.48
wall, floor finish, partition, and earthquake loads.
2252
S.A. Zaidi, T. Naqvi and S.M. Ibrahim Materials Today: Proceedings 43 (2021) 2250–2254

Table 4
Spring constants for isolated footing (Pandey A. D. et. al) [4].

Type of soil Kx (KN/m) Ky (KN/m) Kz (KN/m) KRx (KN-m/rad) KRy (KN-m/rad) KRz(KN-m/rad)
Hard 7309.4 7309.4 8121.6 1777.8 1777.8 2666.7
Medium 1251.1 1251.1 1518.9 334.1 334.1 444.5
Soft 251.0 251.0 366.6 80.3 80.3 83.5

Table 5
Results of Base Force (KN) and Displacement (m) at performance point.

No. of Storeys Soil-Type Base Force (KN) for Displacement (m) for
0⁰ Slope 15⁰ Slope 27⁰ Slope 0⁰ Slope 15⁰ Slope 27⁰ Slope
4 Storeys (Fixed Base) Hard 833.068 940.863 1010.558 0.146 0.075 0.043
Medium 833.068 940.863 1010.558 0.146 0.075 0.043
Soft 833.068 940.863 1010.558 0.146 0.075 0.043
4 Storeys (Flexible Base) Hard 419.254 561.866 866.240 0.225 0.157 0.124
Medium 329.812 487.062 680.639 0.299 0.256 0.228
Soft 301.479 392.347 412.993 0.396 0.365 0.342

are analysed for earthquake forces according to recommendations much when the fixed base of foundation is replaced with flexible
of codes. The buildings are subjected to seismic loads. The results base due to the damping offered by the soil.
obtained after analysis are presented in terms of base force and The variation of base force values is shown in Figs. 2 & 3.
displacement at performance point and compared within respec- The variation of displacement values is shown in Figs. 4 & 5.
tive variations of the building.

3.3. Static pushover curve

3.2.1. Variation in ground slope
In this category, the considered RC building is varied in ground After modelling the buildings and analysing them by non-linear
slope. The ground slope is kept as 0°, 15° and 27°. The effect of static pushover analysis in SAP 2000, a static pushover curve is
increasing the ground slope is observed in terms of base force
and displacement. The results obtained after the analysis are
shown in Table 5.

3.2.1.1. Base force at performance point. As the slope of ground

increases from 0°, 15° to 27° the value of base force also increases
because the building is becoming more and more irregular and
hence attracting greater shear in case of both buildings with fixed
base as well as the buildings with flexible base for a particular soil-
type.
The values of base force obtained for buildings with fixed base is
found to be much higher than the values obtained for buildings
with flexible base due to soil damping. The values of base force
obtained for 4-storey building with fixed base vary from 833.068
KN to 1010.558 KN as the slope of ground increases from 0°, 15°
to 27° whereas the values of base force for the 4-storey building
Fig. 2. Variation of base force with increment in ground slope for building with
with flexible base and for soft soil condition vary from 301.479 fixed base.
KN to 412.993 KN as the slope of ground increases from 0°, 15°
to 27°. The building’s response in terms of base force decreases
very much when the fixed base of foundation is replaced with flex-
ible base due to the damping offered by the soil.

3.2.1.2. Displacement at performance point. As the slope of ground

increases from 0°, 15° to 27° the value of displacement decreases
due to curtailment of columns in case of both buildings with fixed
base as well as flexible base for a particular soil-type.
The values of displacement obtained for buildings with flexible
base is found to be much higher than the values obtained for build-
ings with fixed base due to soil damping. The values of displace-
ment obtained for 4-storey building with fixed base vary from
0.146 m to 0.043 m as the slope of ground increases from 0°, 15°
to 27° whereas the values of displacement for the 4-storey building
with flexible base and for soft soil condition vary from 0.396 m to
0.342 m as the slope of ground increases from 0°, 15° to 27°. The Fig. 3. Variation of base force for increment in ground slope for building with
response of the building in terms of displacement increases very flexible base.

2253
S.A. Zaidi, T. Naqvi and S.M. Ibrahim Materials Today: Proceedings 43 (2021) 2250–2254

ues of various parameters like base force, displacement, spectral

acceleration, spectral displacement, etc. at the performance point
of the structure. The structure is considered to be unsafe beyond
the performance point. Fig. 6 shows the static pushover curve for
a 4-storey building with fixed base and resting on plain ground.

4. Conclusions

In this study, seismic analysis of an RC building located in hilly

area is conducted and the effect of soil-structure interaction is
observed on the performance of building during seismic excita-
tions. The effect of soil-structure interaction is observed on three
different sloping conditions i.e., 0⁰, 15⁰ and 27⁰ for a 4 storey RC
building. This section presents the main findings and conclusions
drawn from the limited analytical investigations undertaken in
Fig. 4. Variation of displacement values for increment in ground slope for building the present study.
with fixed base.

 The results of the study show that the effect of soil-structure

interaction is indeed beneficial to the response of structure.
 As the slope of ground increases, the value of base force
increases around 21% in case of buildings with fixed base and
around 37% in case of buildings with flexible base and for soft
soil condition since the building becomes more and more irreg-
ular as the slope of ground increases and hence attracts greater
shear and torsion.
 As the slope of ground increases, the value of displacement
decreases around 70% in case of buildings with fixed base and
around 14% in case of buildings with flexible base and for soft
soil condition because of the curtailment of columns.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Sahil Abbas Zaidi: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visu-

Fig. 5. Variation of displacement values for increment in ground slope for building alization, Investigation, Software, Validation, Writing - review &
with flexible base. editing. Tabassum Naqvi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware. Syed Muhammad Ibrahim: Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Birajdar, B., & Nalawade, S. (2004). Seismic Analysis of Buildings Resting on
Slopiing Ground. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (p. 1472).
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[2] Z. Mohammad, A. Baqi, M. Arif, in: Seismic Response of RC Framed Buildings
Resting on Hill Slopes, Elsevier, New Delhi, 2017, pp. 1792–1799.
[3] K.S. Rao, R. Ramhmachhuani, in: Site Specific Seismic Input for Structures on
Hill Slopes, Elsevier, New Delhi, 2017, pp. 1747–1754.
[4] A.D. Pandey, P. Kumar, S. Sharma, Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction of Buildings
on Hill Slopes, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering (2011)
535–546.
[5] Bhaumik, L., & Raychowdhury, P. (2013). Seismic Response Analysis of a Nuclear
Reactor Structure Considering Non-Linear Soil-Structure Interaction. 1078-
1090.
Fig. 6. Static pushover curve. [6] B. Vivek, Prishati Raychowdhury, Influence of SSI on Period and Damping of
Buildings Supported by Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soil, International
Journal of 17 (8) (2017) 04017030, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000890.
generated which shows the capacity curve and demand curve for [7] Raychowdhuri, P., & Ray-Chaudhuri, S. (2015). Seismic Response of Non-
the building. The point at which these two curves intersect each Structural Components Supported by a 4-Storey SMRF: Effect of Non-Linear
other is known as ‘‘performance point”. The curve also gives the val- Soil–Structure Interaction. 1-11.

2254