A

Presentation on,
“Study of Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) on Seismic
Behavior of Steel Structure”

Mr. Omkar Mungurdekar

1
• Contents
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Literature review
 Problem statement
 Details of building
 Design of compression member
 Modeling of structure
 Winkler’s spring model
 Results and discussion
 Conclusions
 Future scope
 Reference

2
• Introduction
Soil Structure Interaction Definition :
“The process in which the response of the soil influences
the motion of the structure and the motion of structure
influences the response of the soil is termed as SSI.”

3
• Introduction
• The effect of soil structure interaction (SSI) for light structure such
as low rise building can be neglected but its effect on heavy
structures like high rise buildings, bridges, tall chimneys, nuclear
power plants, elevated highways becomes prominent.

• The effect of soil structure interaction on the structures is not

consider in early stage of construction practices.

• But since last three decades it has achieved significant importance

in the structural response.

• In present study the main objective is to study the effect of soil

structure interaction (SSI) on multistory steel building with different
bracing system.

4
• SSI

Fixed base conditions Considering SSI

5
• Objective

1. To understand the behavior of soil structure interaction on the

seismic response of steel structure.

2. To investigate the effect of soil structure interaction with different

bracing arrangements in steel structure.

3. To study the effect of soil structure interaction (SSI) considering

three different soil strata’s.

4. Analytical study of steel building considering SSI effect using a

commercial software.

6
• Problem statement

 Earthquakes cause damages to structure and result in great

human casualties and economic loss.
 Influence of Soil Structure Interaction plays key role in the
performance of building during the earthquake.
 During last few decades in traditional construction practices the
effect of SSI has been conveniently neglected.
 However nowadays due to heavy structures and construction of
high rise buildings it become prominent to consider the effect of
SSI during the design of any structure.

7
• Building details

• Type of building : Steel

• Nature of building : Residential building
• No. of floors : G +11
• Height of each storey : 3m
• Total Height of building : 36m
• No. of bay in both x & y direction : 4 x 4
• Width of each bay : 4m
• Width and breadth of building : 16m

8
• Building details

Fig. Plan of building

Fig. Elevation of building

9
• Load Considerations
Loads are considered according to IS 875

Types of Loads Loads

DEAD LOADS
1. Wall loads 13.8 kN/m
2. Dead load of floor finish 1 kN/m2
3. Dead load of slab 3.125 kN/m2
4. Dead load of parapet wall 3 kN/m
LIVE LOADS
1. Live load 2 kN/m2

10
• Seismic parameters
Seismic parameters are assumed from IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002

Sr. No Parameters Code Provisions

1 Type of structure Steel
2 Nature of Building Residential
3 Importance factor 1
4 Response reduction factor 4
5 Damping for steel 2%
6 Earthquake Zone 3
7 Zone factor 0.16

11
• Design of Built up section

300mm

10mm

400mm

10mm

12
• Design of Built up section

13
• Design of Built up section
Step 4 : Design Compressive strength
Pd = fcd x Area
= 225 x 18586
= 4181850 N
Pd = 4181.85 kN > P
Hence O.K.

14
• Built up section for column
Typical built up section is designed using section designer in SAP2000
software, which is used for column of steel structure.

15
• Plane frame without bracing
Designed and optimized sectional properties

Storey Column Beam

Ground FR 2ISMC 400
floor (12mm plate)
1st and 2nd FR 2ISMC 400
(8mm plate) ISMB400

3rd to 8th FR 2ISMC 400

(6mm plate)
9th to 11th FR 2ISMC 400

16
• X - bracing
Designed and optimized sectional properties

Storey Column Beam X- Bracing

Ground FR 2ISMC 400
floor (12mm plate)
1st and 2nd FR 2ISMC 400
(8mm plate) ISMB400 ISA 100x100x8

3rd to 8th FR 2ISMC 400

(6mm plate)
9th to 11th FR 2ISMC 400

17
• V - bracing
Designed and optimized sectional properties

Storey Column Beam V- Bracing

Ground FR 2ISMC 400
floor (12mm plate)
1st and 2nd FR 2ISMC 400
(8mm plate) ISMB400 ISA 80x80x8

3rd to 8th FR 2ISMC 400

(6mm plate)
9th to 11th FR 2ISMC 400

18
• Inverted V - bracing
Designed and optimized sectional properties

Storey Column Beam Inverted V-

Bracing
Ground FR 2ISMC 400
floor (12mm plate)
1st and 2nd FR 2ISMC 400
(8mm plate) ISMB400 ISA 90x90x10

3rd to 8th FR 2ISMC 400

(6mm plate)
9th to 11th FR 2ISMC 400

19
• Diagonal bracing
Designed and optimized sectional properties

Storey Column Beam Diagonal Bracing

Ground FR 2ISMC 400
floor (12mm plate)
1st and 2nd FR 2ISMC 400
(8mm plate) ISMB400 ISA 110x110x10

3rd to 8th FR 2ISMC 400

(6mm plate)
9th to 11th FR 2ISMC 400

20
• Spring model
There are two basic classical approaches to represent the soil media in
SSI :
Elastic continuum model
1. This approach provides much
information on stresses and deformation
in soil than Winkler model
2. Two input parameter i.e. modulus of
rigidity and poisons ratio required.
3. But it has major drawback in accuracy
in reactions at peripheries of foundation.
4. Fails to represent physical behavior of
soil
Winkler model
1.This model represents soil medium as a
system of identical but mutually
independent closely spaced, linearly
elastic springs
2.Only subgrade stiffness is the
parameter used in this model
3. It has nearly accurate reaction results
4. Represents good physical behavior of
soil
21
• Winkler model

 Winkler model is most popular and widely used model for SSI analysis.
 The soil is represented in the form of springs of specified stiffness.
 G. Gazetas formulas are used to find stiffness of spring

Winkler model

22
• Properties of soil

 Soil parameters

Soil type Modulus of Shear Poission’s Ratio Unit Weight

Elasticity - E Modulus-G (μ) (kN/m3)

(kN/m2) (Gpa)
Hard soil 65000 25000 0.3 18

Medium soil 35000 12500 0.4 16

Soft soil 15000 5357.14 0.4 16

23
• Spring stiffness formulas – by G. Gazetas
Degrees of freedom Stiffness of equivalent soil spring
Horizontal
[2GL/(2-μ)](2+2.50χ0.85) with χ = Ab /4L2
(lateral direction)
Horizontal [2GL/(2-μ)](2+2.50χ0.85)-[0.2/(0.75-ν)]GL
(longitudinal direction) [1-(B/L)] with χ = Ab /4L2

Vertical [2GL/(1-μ)](0.73+1.54χ0.75) with χ = Ab /4L2

Rocking
[G/(1-μ)]Ibx0.75(L/B)0.25[2.4+0.5(B/L)]
(about longitudinal)
Rocking
[G/(1-μ)]Iby0.75(L/B)0.15
(about lateral)
Torsion 3.5G Ibz0.75(B/L)0.4(Ibz /B4)0.2

24
• Calculated Spring Stiffness For Soil Springs

Degrees of freedom Calculated Stiffness of soil springs (kN/m)

Soil Type Hard Medium Soft

Horizontal
1058823.529 562500 241071.3
(lateral direction)
Horizontal
1058823.529 562500 241071.3
(longitudinal direction)
Vertical 162142.86 94583.333 40535.69

Rocking
65798164.87 38382262.84 16449532.44
(about longitudinal)
Rocking
22689022.37 13235263.05 5672252.567
(about lateral)
Torsion 23406.272 11703.136 5015.627

25
• Results and discussion
 Base shear
Base shear for Plane frame
3000
2445.247 2650.806
2500
2050.143
Base Shear (kN)

2000
1939.978
1500

1000 Base shear for V-Bracing

500 3000
2669.204 2842.849
0 2500 2203.916
Fixed Hard Medium Soft

Base Shear (kN)

2000 2161.426
Support Condition
1500

1000

500

0
Fixed Hard Medium Soft
Support Condition

26
• Results and discussion
 Base shear
Base shear for X-Bracing
3500
2924.42
3000 3050.849
2508.49
2500
Base Shear (kN)

2429.829
2000

1500
Base shear for inverted V-Bracing
1000
3000
500 2677.65 2846.51
2500
0 2043.538
Fixed Hard Medium Soft

Base Shear (kN)

2000 2170.807
Support Condition
1500

1000

500

0
Fixed Hard Medium Soft
Support Condition

27
• Results and discussion
 Base shear

Base shear for diagonal bracing

3500

3000 2693.944 2860.49

2500
Base shear (kN)

2016.79
2000 2187.078

1500

1000

500

0
Fixed Hard Medium Soft
Support Condition

28
• Results and discussion
 Time period
Time period for Plane frame
1.530278
1.341039 1.389651
1.6 1.265437
1.4
Time Period ( Sec)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4 Time period for V-Bracing
0.2
0 1.41091
Fixed Hard Medium Soft 1.6 1.241029
1.174137
Support Condition 1.4 1.033873

Time Period (Sec)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fixed Hard Medium Soft
Support Condition

29
• Results and discussion
 Time period
Time period for X-Bracing
1.373952
1.4 1.172342
1.082005
1.2
0.82395
Time period (Sec)

1
0.8
0.6 Time period for inverted V-Bracing
0.4
0.2 1.410311
1.6
1.237708
0 1.4 1.168097
Fixed Hard Medium Soft 1.010781
1.2

Time period (Sec)

Support Condition 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fixed Hard Medium Soft
Support Condition

30
• Results and discussion
 Time period

Time period for diagonal bracing

1.6 1.404419
1.22976
1.4 1.158769
0.997727
1.2
Time period (Sec)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fixed Hard Medium Soft
Support Condition

31
• Results and discussion
 Roof Displacement

ROOF DISPLACEMENT
Fixed Hard Medium Soft

179.3
178.8

171.6

171.3
150.7
130.1

129.2
121.7

121.2
DISPLACEMENT (MM)

110

92.1
91.4
84.9

84.6

84
72.7

72.5
71.4

74
53.8

PLAIN X-BRACING V-BRACING INVERTED V DIAGONAL

TYPES OF BRACING SYSTEM

32
• Conclusions
1. The conventional design procedure without considering the effect of soil
structure interaction may not give adequate guarantee to the structural safety of
the building.

2. The base shear of the building increases due to SSI effect, for hard soil it
increases by 5% to 8%, for medium soil it increases by 16% to 21%, for soft
soil it increases by 6% to 8% the effect of base shear is more as soil strata
becomes soft.

3. The natural time period of structure increases as the support conditions changes
from fixed soil medium to flexible soil medium for hard soil 5% to 26%, for
medium 4% to 8% and for soft 9% to 15% . Natural time period is a basic
parameter which regulates the seismic lateral response of the building during
earthquake. Thus evaluation of this parameter without considering SSI may
cause significant errors in the design of structure.

33
• Conclusions

4. SSI model with flexible support conditions displays higher roof displacements
as compared to the rigid support conditions for hard soil it increases by 7% to
25%, for medium soil by 28% to 31%, for soft soil by 29% to 30%, hence
considering the effect of roof displacement without SSI could not give the
reliable results while designing any structure.

5. Based on results obtained as displacement is less in X braced steel structure, X

braced system gives better performance during earthquake.

34
• Future scope for further study
1. In this study the analysis is carried out for steel structure and composite
structure can also be analyzed similarly.

2. In this study analysis is carried out for symmetrical structure this can be
extended for unsymmetrical building for analysis.

3. In study the analysis is carried out considering raft foundation, this can also
be extended using various types of foundation viz. pile foundation, isolated
foundation, etc.

4. In study the soil structure interaction modeling is carried out by Winkler’s

Method the structure can also be modeled by Elastic Continuum Method
and comparison between both methods can be carried out.

35
• Reference
1. S.A.Halkude, M.G.Kalayanshetti, Barelikar S.M. “Seismic response of R.C. frames with
raft footing considering soil structure interaction” J Gate IJCET Vol No.4, 2014
2. H.R.Tabatabaiefar, B. Samali, B.Fatahi “Seismic behavior of steel moment resisting
buildings on soft soil considering soil structure interaction” Research Gate Jan 2010.
3. C.C. Spyrakos, Ch.A. Maniatakis, I.A. Koutromanos “Soil structure interaction effects on
base-isolated buildings founded on soil stratum”, Science direct, Engineering
structures,2009.
4. M.E.Boostani Darmian, M.Azhdary Moghaddam, and H.R.Naseri “Soil structure
interaction in steel braced structure with foundation uplifts”, IJRRAS, Vol.7, Issue 2,
May 2011.

36
• Reference
5. S.Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar, Bijan Samali, Behzad Fatahi “Seismic behavior of building
frams considering dynamic soil structure interaction” ASCE, International journal of
geomechanics, Aug 2013
6. K.K.Sangle, K.M.Bajoria,V.Mhalungkar “ Seismic analysis of high rise steel frames with
and without bracing”, 15 WCEE, LISBOA, 2012.
7. Vaishali M. Thormal, Dr.K.B. Ladhane, Prof. V.R.Rathis “Effect of Soil structure interaction
on response of multistory building”,International journal of Engineering Research and
Technology (IJERT),Vol. 3, Issue 8, Aug 2014.
8. S.A.Halkude, M.G.Kalayanshetti, V.A.Kadlag “Push over analysis of R.C. frames
considering soil structure interaction”, International journal of current Engineering And
Technology, Vol.5 , NO.1, Feb 2015.

37
 THANK
YOU

38