Optimum lateral extent of soil domain for dynamic SSI analysis of RC framed buildings on pile foundations

  • Nishant Sharma
  • Kaustubh Dasgupta
  • Arindam DeyEmail author
Research Article


This article describes a novel approach for deciding optimal horizontal extent of soil domain to be used for finite element based numerical dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) studies. SSI model for a 12 storied building frame, supported on pile foundation-soil system, is developed in the finite element based software framework, OpenSEES. Three different structure-foundation configurations are analyzed under different ground motion characteristics. Lateral extent of soil domain, along with the soil properties, were varied exhaustively for a particular structural configuration. Based on the reduction in the variation of acceleration response at different locations in the SSI system (quantified by normalized root mean square error, NRMSE), the optimum lateral extent of the soil domain is prescribed for various structural widths, soil types and peak ground acceleration levels of ground motion. Compared to the past studies, error estimation analysis shows that the relationships prescribed in the present study are credible and more inclusive of the various factors that influence SSI. These relationships can be readily applied for deciding upon the lateral extent of the soil domain for conducting precise SSI analysis with reduced computational time.


soil structure interaction optimum lateral extent of soil domain length multi-storyed framed building pile foundation OpenSEES L-K boundaries dynamic analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The support and resources provided by Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati and Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD, Govt. of India), is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.


  1. 1.
    Veletsos A S, Meek J W. Dynamic behaviour of building foundation systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1974, 3(2): 121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bielak J. Dynamic response of non linear building foundation systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1978, 6(1): 17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oliveto G, Santini A. A simplified model for the dynamic soil-structure interaction of planar frame-wall systems. Engineering Structures, 1993, 15(6): 431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nadjai A, Johnson D. Elastic analysis of spatial shear wall systems with flexible bases. Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 1996, 5(1): 55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bielak J, Loukakis K, Hisada Y, Yoshimura C. Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, part I: Theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2003, 93(2): 817–824MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dutta S C, Bhattacharya K, Roy R. Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 24(12): 893–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bárcena A, Esteva L. Influence of dynamic soil—structure interaction on the nonlinear response and seismic reliability of multistorey systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2007, 36(3): 327–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Song C, Wolf J P. The scaled boundary finite-element method —alias consistent infinitesimal finite-element cell method—for elastodynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1997, 147(3–4): 329–355MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolf J P, Song C. Some cornerstones of dynamic soil-structure interaction. Engineering Structures, 2002, 24(1): 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Genes M C, Kocak S. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis of layered unbounded media via a coupled finite element/boundary element/scaled boundary finite element model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2005, 62(6): 798–823zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genes M C. Dynamic analysis of large-scale SSI systems for layered unbounded media via a parallelized coupled finite-element/boundary-element/scaled boundary finite-element model. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 2012, 36(5): 845–857zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khudari Bek Y, Hamdia K M, Rabczuk T, Könke C. Micro-mechanical model for polymeric nano-composites material based on SBFEM. Composite Structures, 2018, 194: 516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    JSCE. Guidelines for Concrete No. 15: Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2007Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Datta T K. Seismic Analysis of Structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghosh S, Wilson E. Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures under Arbitrary Loading. Report No. EERC 69-10. Berkeley: University of California, 1969Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roesset J M, Ettouney M M. Transmitting boundaries: A comparison. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1977, 1(2): 151–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolf J P. A comparison of time-domain transmitting boundaries. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1986, 14(4): 655–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu X, Chen B, Li P, Chen Y. Numerical analysis of tall buildings considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2003, 2(1): 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pala M, Caglar N, Elmas M, Cevik A, Saribiyik M. Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings by neural networks. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(3): 330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rayhani M H, El Naggar M H. Numerical modeling of seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2008, 8(6): 336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matinmanesh H, Asheghabadi M S. Seismic analysis on soil-structure interaction of buildings over sandy soil. Procedia Engineering, 2011, 14: 1737–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tabatabaiefar H R, Massumi A. A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 30(11): 1259–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reza Tabatabaiefar S H, Fatahi B, Samali B. Seismic behavior of building frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2013, 13(4): 409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nateghi-A F, Rezaei-Tabrizi A. Nonlinear dynamic response of tall buildings considering structure-soil-structure effects. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2013, 22(14): 1075–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sáez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A. Inelastic dynamic soil-structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings. Engineering Structures, 2013, 51: 166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hokmabadi A S, Fatahi B, Samali B. Assessment of soil-pile-structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Computers and Geotechnics, 2014, 55: 172–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen Q V, Fatahi B, Hokmabadi A S. The effects of foundation size on the seismic performance of buildings considering the soil-foundation-structure interaction. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2016, 58(6): 1045–1075zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghandil M, Behnamfar F. Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 92: 203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte J P. Three-dimensional seismic response of Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2008, 134(7): 1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Conte J P, Yang Z, Elgamal A, Bielak J, Acero G. Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system. Earthquake Spectra, 2008, 24(2): 343–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mondal G, Prashant A, Jain S K. Significance of interface nonlinearity on the seismic response of a well-pier system in cohesionless Soil. Earthquake Spectra, 2012, 28(3): 1117–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kolay C, Prashant A, Jain S K. Nonlinear dynamic analysis and seismic coefficient for abutments and retaining walls. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(2): 427–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Özel H F, Arici Y. Comparison of 2D vs. 3D modeling approaches for the analyses of concrete faced rockfill dams. In: Proceedings the of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, 2012Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luque R, Bray J D. Dynamic analyses of two buildings founded on liquefiable soils during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2017, 143(9): 04017067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dashti S, Bray J D. Numerical simulation of building response on liquefiable sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013, 139(8): 1235–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M H, Fenves G L. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation user Manual. Berkeley: University of California, 2009Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuhlemeyer R L, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1973, 99(SM5): 421–427Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A. OpenSees Soil Models and Solid-Fluid Fully Coupled Elements, User’s Manual 2008 Version 1.0. San Diego: University of California, 2008Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drucker D C, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 1952, 10(2): 157–165MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E, Ragheb A. Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils. International Journal of Plasticity, 2003, 19(6): 883–905zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    IS 456. Indian Standard Plain and Reinforece Concrete—Code of Practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2000Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    IS 13920. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces—Code of Practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2016Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    IS 2911Part 1/Sec 1. Indian Standard Design and Construction of Pile Foundations—Code of Practice: Concrete Piles. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2010Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    IS 875. Part 2. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Building and Structures: Imposed Loads. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 1987Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    IS 1893. Part 1. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: General Provisions and Buildings. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2016Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer R L. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1969, 95(4): 859–878Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Joyner W B. A method for calculating nonlinear seismic response in two dimensions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1975, 65(5): 1337–1357Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code. California, 1997Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Trifunac M D, Brady A G. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1975, 65(3): 581–626Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kempton J J, Stewart J P. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra, 2006, 22(4): 985–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hilber H M, Hughes T J R, Taylor R L. Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1977, 5(3): 283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chopra A K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhang Y, Yang Z, Bielak J, Conte J P, Elgamal A. Treatment of seismic input and boundary conditions in nonlinear seismic analysis of a bridge ground system. In: Proceedings the of the 16th ASCE engineering mechanics conference. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 2003Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nishant Sharma
    • 1
  • Kaustubh Dasgupta
    • 1
  • Arindam Dey
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations