International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

E-ISSN 2277 4106, P-ISSN 2347 - 5161

2014 INPRESSCO , All Rights Reserved

Available at http://inpressco.com/category/ijcet

Research Article

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure
Interaction
Halkude S.A., Kalyanshetti M.G. and Barelikar S.M.

Walchand Institute of Technology, Solapur, India

Civil Engg. Dept., Walchand Institute of Technology, Solapur, India

Accepted 10 May 2014, Available online 01 June 2014, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Abstract
In the conventional method of design of raft foundation flexibility of soil mass is ignored which is likely to affect the
performance of structure. In the proposed study an attempt is made to understand the effect of soil flexibility on the
performance of building frames resting on raft foundation. The purpose of this study is to describe and investigate
different approaches of considering soil flexibility in the soil structure interaction analysis (SSI) with regard to the
response in the superstructure. The present study is focused on SSI analysis of symmetrical space frame of 2 bay in both
x and y direction, 2 storey (2X2X2), 2 bays in both direction, 5 storey (2X2X5) and 2 bay in both direction, 8 storey
(2X2X8) resting on raft foundation with fixed base and flexible base. Three types of soil i.e. Hard, Medium Hard and Soft
Soil are used for the SSI study. Dynamic analysis is carried out using the Response Spectra of IS: 1893-2002. The soil
flexibility is incorporated in the analysis using Winkler approach (spring model) and elastic continuum approach (FEM
model). SAP-2000 is used for developing these models. The effect of SSI on various structural parameters i.e. natural
time period, base shear, roof displacement, beam moment and column moment are studied and discussed. The
comparison is made between the approaches of SSI modeling i.e. Winkler approach (spring model) and elastic
continuum approach (FEM model). The study reveals that the SSI significantly affects the response of the structure.
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) has proved to be the effective approach for consideration of elastic continuum
beneath foundation.
Keywords: Soil Structure Interaction, Seismic Response, Response Spectrum, Raft Footing, Finite Element Method,
Elastic Continuum, Winkler Method, SAP-2000.

1. Introduction
1

In the era of fast growing urbanization due to paucity of

land, structure are being constructed on available
relatively soft soil which otherwise were deemed to be
unsuitable for construction in the past. However due to
advancements in various ground improvement techniques,
it is possible to build the structures on raft foundation.
This calls upon the attention of designers to understand the
dynamic behavior of such kind of Soil Structure
Interaction (SSI). The effect of soil flexibility is suggested
to be accounted through the consideration of springs of
specified stiffness to represent the soil. Present study aims
to understand the effect of soil flexibility on various
response parameters of building frames. Many researchers
have proposed different methods to evaluate the effect of
soil-structure interaction in the past. Hetenyi (1964)
considered the interaction among the discrete springs by
incorporating an elastic beam or an elastic plate, which
undergoes flexural deformation only. Winklers
idealization (1867) represents the soil medium as a system
*Corresponding author Barelikar S.M is a PG student, Halkude S.A is
working as Principal and Kalyanshetti M.G as Asst Prof

of identical but mutually independent, closely spaced,

discrete, linearly elastic springs. According to spring
idealization, deformation of foundation due to applied load
is confined to loaded regions only. George Gazetas (1991)
has presented complete set of algebraic formulas and
dimensionless charts for readily computing the dynamic
stiffness (K) and damping coefficient (c) of foundation
harmonically oscillating in a homogenous half space.
Shekharchandra Datt (2002) presented possible alternative
models for the purpose of soil structure interaction
analysis. Winkler hypothesis despite its obvious limitation,
yields reasonable performance and it is very easy to
exercise .The use of finite element method has attained a
sudden spurt to study the complex interactive behavior. It
is possible to model many complex conditions with high
degree of realism including nonlinear stress-strain
behavior, non-homogenous material condition, and change
in geometry and so on. Hence for studying SSI, Finite
Element Method is observed to be effective. Bhattacharya
el al (2004) concluded that the effect of SSI may cause
considerable increase in base shear of low-rise building
frames particularly those with isolated footing. B.R.
Jayalaxmi et al (2009) studied earthquake response of
multistoried R.C. frame with soil structure interaction

1424 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Halkude S.A. et al

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

Table I Soil Elastic Constants

Soil Type
Hard Soil
Medium Hard
Soft

Designation
E-65000
E-35000
E-15000

Modulus of Elasticity (kN/m2)

65000
35000
15000

Poissons Ratio()
0.3
0.4
0.4

Unit Weight () (kN/m3)

18
16
16

Table II Geometric and Material Properties of Frame, Footing and Soil Mass
Component

Frames

Foundation

Soil

Description
Number of storeys
Number of bays in X direction
Number of bays in Y direction
Storey Height
Bay width in X direction
Bay width in Y direction
Size of Beam
Size of Column
Thickness of slab
Raft footing
Elastic Modulus of concrete
Poisson's ratio of concrete
Block of Soil Mass
Modulus Elasticity of soil
Poisson's ratio of Soil

Data
2,5,8
2
2
3.2m
5m
5m
0.3 m x 0.4 m
0.3 m x 0.45 m
0.125 m
14 m x 14 m - 1m depth
2.5 x 10 kN/m2
0.2
32m x 32m - 16m depth beneath footing
65000, 35000, 15000 kN/m2
0.3, 0.4

Table III Spring Stiffness Formulae

Degrees of freedom
Vertical
Horizontal (lateral direction)
Horizontal (longitudinal direction)
Rocking (about longitudinal)
Rocking (about lateral)
Torsion

Stiffness of equivalent soil spring

[2GL/(1-)](0.73+1.540.75) with = Ab/4L2
[2GL/(2-)](2+2.500.85) with = Ab/4L2
[2GL/(2-)](2+2.500.85)-[0.2/(0.75-)]GL[1-(B/L)] with = Ab/4L2
[G/(1-)]Ibx0.75(L/B)0.25[2.4+0.5(B/L)]
[G/(1-)]Iby0.75(L/B)0.15
3.5G Ibz0.75(B/L)0.4(Ibz/B4)0.2

where, Ab= Area of the foundation considered; B and L= Half-width and half-length of a rectangular foundation,
respectively; Ibx, Iby, and Ibz = Moment of inertia of the foundation area with respect to longitudinal, lateral and vertical
axes, respectively.
effects by modeling structurefoundation-soil system by
Finite Element Method. Seismic response of buildings
considering SSI exhibit variations based on frequency
content of motion and stiffness of soil. Garg and Hora
(2012) analyzed the performance of frame-footing-soil
system by considering plane frame, infill frame,
homogenous soil and layered soil mass. They concluded
that shear force and bending moment in superstructure get
significantly altered due to differential settlement of soil
mass. S.A. Halkude and M.G. Kalyanshetti (2014) studied
the effect of SSI on the building frame resting on isolated
footing. The study is considered by two approaches i.e.
Winkler approach (Spring model) and Elastic continuum
approach (FEM model). They concluded that elastic
continuum approach (FEM model) is an effective
approach for consideration of elastic continuum beneath
foundation.
The objective of the present study is to assess the
effect of SSI on various dynamic properties of R.C. frame
such as Natural Time period, Base shear, Roof
Displacement, Beam moment, Column moment, etc. The
above study is carried out by modeling the soil structure

using two approaches viz. Winkler approach (Spring

model) and Elastic Continuum approach (FEM model) to
understand & compare the effectiveness of these models.
2. Methodology
Hard Soil, Medium Hard Soil and Soft Soil are the three
types of soil upon which the structural frames are
considered to be resting. The properties of soils with the
elastic constant of these three soils are considered as per
Bowel shown in Table I.
Symmetric space frames of 2 bays 2 storey; 2 bay 5
storey and 2 bay 8 storey are considered. The details of
building frames, foundation and soil mass considered for
the study are given in Table II.
2.1 Idealization by Winkler approach (Spring Model)
Effect of SSI is considered by equivalent springs with six
degrees of freedom (DOF) as shown in fig.1. The stiffness
along these six DOF is determined as per George Gazetas
and is shown in Table III.

1425 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Halkude S.A. et al

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

3.1 Frame Element

The beams and columns are modeled as frame element. It
is a uniaxial element with tension, compression and
bending capabilities. The element has six DOF at each
node, translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and
rotation about the nodal x, y, and z-axis. The element is
defined by two nodes, the cross-sectional area, and the
material properties.
3.2 Solid Element
Fig.1 Equivalent Spring Stiffness
where in Fig.1, Ky, Kz =Stiffness of equivalent soil springs
along the translation degree of freedom along X, Y and Zaxes. Krx, Kry, Krz = Stiffness of equivalent rotational soil
springs along the rotational degree of freedom along X, Y
and Z-axes.
The values of stiffness for three types of soil are calculated
as per Table III and are shown in Table IV.
Table IV Calculated Spring Stiffness
Stiffness of Equivalent Soil Spring ( kN/m)
E-65000
Soil Type
Horizontal
(longitudinal
direction)
Horizontal (lateral direction)
Vertical
Rocking
(about
the
longitudinal)
Rocking (about the lateral)
Torsion

E-35000

E-15000

984375

492187.5

210937.5

984375
1324167

492187.5
662083.3

210937.5
283750

51426259

25713129

11019913

53199578
3214936

26599789
1607468

11399910
688914.9

The soil is assumed to be linear, elastic and isotropic

material. The slab and foundation are assumed to be
elastic. The foundation and soil is discretized as eightnodded brick element. The element is defined by four
nodes, thickness, and the material properties. Soil is
modeled as a 3D element with different soil properties i.e.
shear modulus of soil (G), poisons ratio (), unit weight
of soil () and modulus of elasticity (E). Using SAP 2000
the 3D modeling of the whole structure-foundation-soil
system with soil is developed. Spring model and FEM
model are shown in the Fig.2 and Fig.3 respectively which
are considered for the study.

Symmetrical frame of (2x2x2), (2x2x5) and (2x2x8) are

considered to be resting on Raft footing of size 14x14m.
The SSI effect is incorporated by considering the springs
beneath the raft as shown in Fig.2
2.2 Idealization of Elastic Continuum approach (FEM
Model)

Fig.2 Winkler Approach (Spring Model)

Soil Structure Interaction is also carried out by considering

elastic continuum with the help of Finite Element Method
(FEM). The finite soil mass is considered based on
convergence study, with boundary far beyond a region
where structural loading has no effect. This is assumed to
be at a lateral offset of width of the building on all four
sides and depth equal to 1.5 times the width of building.
As per this guideline soil bock of 32x32m in plan and
having 16m depth beneath the raft foundation is used for
the study. The superstructure-foundation-soil system in
three-dimensional form is modeled by FEM which is
shown in Fig.3
3. FEM Formulation
The FEM formulation of superstructure-foundation-soil is
done in three dimensions using SAP 2000 FEM software
as follows.

Fig.3 Elastic continuum Approach (FEM Model)

1426 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Halkude S.A. et al

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

4. Parametric Study

1.50

Table V Study Formulation

NATURAL TIME PERIOD (sec)

1.48

The Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) is studied by two

approaches i.e. Winkler approach (Spring Model) and
Elastic continuum approach (FEM Model). Three R.C.C.
framed structures 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and 2x2x8 with raft
footings is analyzed considering fixed base and flexible
base. The study formulation of different structure is given
in Table V.

1.46
FEM
MODEL

1.44
1.42
1.40

SPRING
MODEL

1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
1.28

2x2x2, 2x2x5, 2x2x8

Fixed Base, Flexible Base (E-65000, E-35000,
E-15000)
Spring Model, FEM Model

Response Spectrum given in IS: 1893-2002 is used for the

analysis. The analysis of both the model is performed
using SAP 2000. Effects of SSI on different parameters
are studied i.e. Natural Time Period, Roof Displacement,
Base Shear, Beam bending moment, Column bending
moment. These are discussed one by one as followed.
4.1 Natural Time Period
The variation in Natural Time Period of structure of fixed
base and flexible base for both the models are presented in
the Fig.4, Fig.5, Fig.6 for 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and 2x2x8
building frames respectively. The combined representation
for all the frames for all support conditions are shown in
Fig.7.
1.4

NATURAL TIME PERIOD (sec)

1.2
FEM
MODEL

1.0

FIXED

SPRING
MODEL

0.6

E-35000

E-15000

Fig.5 Natural Time period of structure for different

support conditions of 2x2x5 structural frame.
For 2x2x5 structure as shown in fig 5, there is again more
variation observed in elastic continuum approach (FEM
model). In comparison with 2x2x2 frame for 2x2x5 frame
the difference in the time period is observed for hard soil.
This difference increase steeply with increase in the
softness of soil.
2.15

2.10
FEM
MODEL
2.05
SPRING
MODEL

2.00

1.95

1.90
FIXED

0.8

E-65000

SUPPORT CONDITION

NATURAL TIME PERIOD (sec)

Frames
Base
Conditions
SSI Models

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

0.4

Fig.6 Natural Time period of structure for different

support conditions of 2x2x8 structural frame.

0.2
0.0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.4 Natural Time period of structure for different

support conditions of 2x2x2 structural frame.
With reference to Fig. 4 for 2x2x2 structure, there is
marginal change in time period for spring model for
various supports. In case of elastic continuum approach
(FEM model) time period increases steeply for softer soil.
There is not much difference in time period observed from
fixed to hard soil. The difference is large (in the range 8090%) for soft soil. Thus SSI effect is more significantly
observed in soft soil and also elastic continuum approach
(FEM model) estimates more time period for softer soil
because of its realistic representation of soil flexibility in
the analysis.

For 2x2x8 with reference to Fig.6, it is observed that

difference in the time period for hard soil in both the
model is even more in comparison with 2x2x2 and 2x2x5
frame. This variation in the time period for hard soil is due
to increase in height of the structure. Thus for low-rise
structure SSI effect is not significant at least up to hard
soil. However SSI effect becomes more significant for
high rise structure since the variation in time period is
observed even in hard soil and further aggravates with
increase in the softness of soil.
From Fig.4 to Fig.7 it is observed that with the
increase in soil flexibility the Natural Time Period
increases nonlinearly. The rate of increase of natural time
period becomes steeper with softer soil. Elastic continuum
approach (FEM model) shows higher time period than the
spring model. This difference is less for low rise building
and goes on increasing with height of building. Elastic

1427 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

continuum approach (FEM model) incorporates the

flexibility more precisely due to realistic idealization
Winkler approach (Spring Model) hence the higher time
period is observed for softer soil. There is about 10-15%
of increment in Natural Time Period from hard to soft Soil
in Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) while it is
almost negligible in Winkler approach (Spring Model).
From above all discussion it can be stated that spring
models under estimates the time period for softer soil.
Thus for hard soil Winkler approach (Spring Model) is
suitable and for softer soil Elastic continuum approach
(FEM model) is suitable.

80
70
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Halkude S.A. et al

60

FEM
MODEL

50
40

SPRING
MODEL

30
20
10
0
FIXED

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

FEM FIXED

2.5

E-65000

FEM E-65000
NATURAL TME PERIOD (sec)

2
FEM E-35000

Fig.9 Roof displacement of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x5 structural frame.

1.5

70

FEM E-15000

60
SPRING FIXED

0.5

SPRING E-65000

SPRING E-35000

0
2X2X2

2X2X5

2X2X8
SPRING E-15000

STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

ROOF DISPLACEMENT (mm)

40

20
10
0

30

ROOF DISPLACEMENT (mm)

25
FEM
MODEL

20

SPRING
MODEL

15

FIXED

E-65000
E-35000 E-15000
SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.10 Roof displacement of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x8 structural frame.
80

FEM FIXED

70

FEM E-65000

60
FEM E-35000
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (mm)

The variation in Roof Displacement of structure of fixed

base and flexible base for both the models are presented in
the Fig.8, Fig.9, Fig.10 for 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and 2x2x8
building frames respectively. The combined representation
for all the frames for all support conditions are shown in
Fig.11.

SPRING
MODEL

30

Fig.7 Natural Time Period of structure different support

conditions and different structural frames for Spring and
FEM model.
4.2 Roof Displacement

FEM
MODEL

50

50
FEM E-15000

40
30

SPRING FIXED

20

SPRING E-65000

10
SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

SPRING E-15000

10

Fig.11 Roof displacement of structure for different support

conditions and different structural frames for Spring and
FEM model.

5
0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.8 Roof displacement of structure for different support

of 2x2x2 structural frame.

From Fig.8 to Fig.11 it is observed that the Roof

Displacement increases with soil flexibility nonlinearly.
With increase in soil stiffness the roof displacement
increases with high rate. There is 4-5 times increase in
Roof displacement in soft Soil as compared to hard soil in

1428 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Halkude S.A. et al

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) wherein

Winkler approach (Spring Model) it is 2-2.5 times. Roof
displacement in Elastic continuum approach (FEM model)
is about 3-4 times more than that in Winkler approach
(Spring Model). The spring model doesnt reflect the
flexibility with high precision due its idealization of only
six DOF. However Elastic continuum approach (FEM
model) correctly reflects the flexibility as complete elastic
continuum is used therefore roof displacement increases
with higher rate with increase in softness of soil.

shear is noticeable with higher values. There is about 3845% of increment in Base Shear from hard to soft Soil in
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) and 46-51%
increment in Winkler approach (Spring Model). Base
Shear in Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) is 5-6
times more than that in Winkler approach (Spring Model).
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) shows
considerable variation in Base Shear.
1800
1600

4.3 Base Shear

1400

FEM
MODEL

1200
BASE SHEAR (kN)

The variation in Base Shear of structure of fixed base and

flexible base for both the models are presented in the
Fig.12, Fig.13, Fig.14 for 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and 2x2x8
building frames respectively. The combined representation
for all the frames for all support conditions are shown in
Fig.15.

1000
SPRING
MODEL

800
600
400
200
0

140

FIXED

120

E-35000

E-15000

FEM
MODEL

100
BASE SHEAR (kN)

E-65000

SUPPORT CONDITION

80
SPRING
MODEL

60

Fig.14 Base Shear of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x8 structural frame.

40
FEM FIXED

1800

20

1600

FEM E-65000

1400

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.12 Base Shear of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x2 structural frame.

BASE SHEAR (kN)

FIXED

FEM E-35000

1200
1000

FEM E-15000

800
SPRING FIXED

600
400

SPRING E-65000

200

600

SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

BASE SHEAR (kN)

500

SPRING E-15000

FEM
MODEL

400
300

SPRING
MODEL

200

Fig.15 Base Shear of structure for different support

conditions and different structural frames for Spring and
FEM model.
4.4 Beam Moment

100
0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.13 Base Shear of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x5 structural frame.
From Fig.12 to Fig.15 it is observed that Base Shear is
also observed to be increased with increase in base
flexibility. For small height of building the variation in
base shear with increase in soil flexibility is marginal but
it increases with increase in height of building the base

The variation in Beam Moment of structure of fixed base

and flexible base for both the models are presented in the
Fig.16, Fig.17, Fig.18 for 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and 2x2x8
building frames respectively. The combined representation
for all the frames for all support conditions are shown in
Fig.19.
From Fig.16 to Fig.19 it is observed that as the soil
flexibility increases, Beam Moment also increases. There
is about 2-3 time of increment in Beam Moment from hard
to soft Soil for Elastic continuum approach (FEM model)
and 1.5-2 times in Winkler approach (Spring Model).
Beam Moment in Elastic continuum approach (FEM
model) is about 2.5-3 times more than that in Winkler

1429 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

approach (Spring Model). Therefore Winkler approach

(Spring Model) underestimates the bending moment
especially for soft soil. The increase in the BM is due to
differential settlement of supports due to support
flexibility.
35

BEAM MOMENT (kNm)

30
FEM
MODEL

25
20

BEAM MOMENT (kNm)

Halkude S.A. et al

140

FEM FIXED

120

FEM E-65000

100

FEM E-35000

80

FEM E-15000

60
SPRING FIXED
40
SPRING E-65000
20
SPRING E-35000

SPRING
MODEL

15

0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

10
5

Fig.19 Beam moment of structure for different support

conditions and different structural frames for Spring and
FEM model.

0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

SPRING E-15000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

4.5 Column Moment

Fig.16 Beam moment of structure for different support
conditions of 2x2x2 structural frame.
100
90
80
FEM
MODEL

60

50

50

SPRING
MODEL

40
30
20
10
0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

45
40
COLUMN MOMENT (kNm)

BEAM MOMENT (kNm)

70

The variation in Column Moment of structure of fixed

base and flexible base for both the models are presented in
the Fig.20, Fig.21, Fig.22 for 2x2x2, 2x2x5 and 2x2x8
building frames respectively. The combined representation
for all the frames for all support conditions are shown in
Fig.23.

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

FEM
MODEL

35
30
25

SPRING
MODEL

20
15
10
5
0
FIXED

Fig.17 Beam moment of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x5 structural frame.

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.20 Column moment of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x2 structural frame.

120

120

FEM
MODEL

80

100
60

SPRING
MODEL

40
20
0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

COLUMN MOMENT (kNm)

BEAM MOMENT (kNm)

100

FEM
MODEL

80

SPRING
MODEL

60
40
20
0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.18 Beam moment of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x8 structural frame.

Fig.21 Column moment of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x5 structural frame.

1430 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)

Halkude S.A. et al

Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Raft Footing Considering Soil Structure Interaction

140
120
FEM
MODEL

COLUMN MOMENT (kNm)

100
80

SPRING
MODEL

60
40
20
0
FIXED

E-65000

E-35000

E-15000

SUPPORT CONDITION

Fig.22 Column moment of structure for different support

conditions of 2x2x8 structural frame.
160

FEM FIXED

140

FEM E-65000

120
COLUMN MOMENT (kNm)

FEM E-35000
100
FEM E-15000

80
60

SPRING FIXED

40

SPRING E-65000

20
SPRING E-35000
0
2X2X2
2X2X5
2X2X8
STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION

SPRING E-15000

Fig.23 Column moment of structure for different support

conditions and different structural frames for Spring and
FEM model.
From Fig.20 to Fig.23 it is observed as the soil flexibility
increases, Column Moment also increases. There is
increment in Column moment with increase in height of
frame with increase in soil stiffness. There is about 2-2.5
times of increment in Column Moment from hard to soft
Soil for Elastic continuum approach (FEM model) and
1.5-2 times of increment for Winkler approach (Spring
Model). Column Moment in Elastic continuum approach
(FEM model) is 2.5-3 times more than that in Winkler
approach (Spring Model). Column moment is directly
variable with the frame height.
In the study the analysis shows that, SSI effect during
an earthquake shows significant changes in the response of
building. Variation in dynamic properties such as Natural
time period, roof displacement, base shear, beam moment
and column moment is observed by considering SSI effect.
Conclusion
1) Natural time period is a primary parameter which
regulates the seismic lateral response of the structural
frames. The natural period of structure increases due
to SSI effect. For soft soil the effect is more
prominent. Thus evaluation of this parameter without

considering SSI may cause serious failure in seismic

design.
2) Increase in soil flexibility causes increase in the base
shear. For soft soil base shear increases with higher
rate. Base Shear shows a remarkable increment with
increase in soil softness and storey height.
3) Roof displacement is also observed to be increasing
due to incorporation of SSI. For soft soil the roof
displacement is higher and in Elastic continuum
approach (FEM model) the increment is more than in
Winkler approach (Spring Model).
4) Beam Moment and Column Moment are observed to
be increased due to SSI effect. For stiff soil the
difference is about 1.5-2 times however for soft soil it
is observed to be in the range of 2.5-3 times.
5) Natural Period, Roof Displacement, Base Shear,
Beam Moment and Column Moment are observed to
be increasing more in case of Elastic continuum
approach (FEM model) as comparative to Winkler
approach (Spring Model).
6) It is possible to incorporate variation in the soil
properties, layered soil and boundary conditions in
Elastic continuum approach (FEM model). Elastic
continuum approach (FEM model) is more effective
than Winkler approach (Spring Model) as it considers
elastic continuum below foundation which assists to
get realistic behavior of structure.
Finite Element Method has proved to be more useful
method for studying the effect of SSI. At least Winkler
hypothesis should be employed to consider SSI instead of
fixed base to decrease the complexity for practical
purpose.
References
George Gazetas, Member, ASCE, Formulas and charts for impedances of
surface and embedded foundations.
Sekhar Chandra Dutta, Rana Roy (2002), A critical review on
idealization and modeling for interaction among soil-foundation
structure system, Computers and Structures 80, pp.1579_1594
Koushik Bhattacharya, Shekhar Chandra Datta (2004), Assessing lateral
period of building frames incorporating soil flexibility, Journal of
sound and vibration, 269, pp.795-821
B.R. Jayalekshmi (May-2013) Earthquake response of multistoried R.C.
frames with soil structure interaction effects.Volume 4, Issue 5, ISSN
2229-5518
Vivek Garg, M.S. Hora (November- December 2012), A review on
interaction beahaviour of structure-foundation-soil system.,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol.
2, Issue 6,, pp.639-644.
Bowles, J.E. (1998).Foundation Analysis and design, McGraw Hills,
New York.
S.A. Halkude, M.G. Kalyanshetti (Jan 2014) Soil Structure Interaction
Effect on Seismic Response of R.C. Frames with Isolated Footing
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
Vol. 3 Issue 1, pp.2767-2775.
IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures-General provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
IS 456:2000 Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced
Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
A.K. Chopra (1998), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to
Earthquake Engineering. , Prentice Hall, New Delhi, India, pp. 515519.
K. Bhattacharya, S.C. Dutta, and S. Dasgupta (2004), Effect of soilflexibility on dynamic beahaviour of building frames on raft
foundation, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 274, no. 1-2, pp111135, doi: 10.1016/S0022-460X(03)00652-7.

1431 | International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.4, No.3 (June 2014)