Effect of soil–pile–structure interaction on seismic behaviour of RC building frames

  • J. VisuvasamEmail author
  • S. S. Chandrasekaran
Technical papers


Pile foundations are generally used to support important industrial buildings, especially located in coastal regions where the major portion is covered by loose soil deposits. They are commonly subjected to lateral dynamic loads mainly due to earthquakes, wind, machineries, and sea waves. Thus, proper analysis and design of pile foundations should be carried out considering soil–pile–structure interaction. In general, the effects of soil–structure interaction are ignored during seismic analysis and design of super-structures. But in reality, the soil-foundation system affects the structural behaviour detrimentally. The main aim of this study was to investigate the effects of soil–pile–structure interaction on the earthquake behaviour of reinforced concrete building frames. Equivalent static analysis was carried out using direct method of approach. A geotechnical finite element program PLAXIS 3D was used for this numerical investigation. Building types ranging from low-rise to high-rise (5 storeys, 10 storeys and 15 storeys), relative densities of sandy soil ranging from loose to dense (30%, 50% and 70%) and spacing of piles ranging from close to large (2D, 4D and 6D) were the parameters considered for this study. The results of pile lateral displacement, rocking of raft foundation, storey lateral displacement and inter-storey drift were obtained for pile supported structure and compared with rigid base structural response. It is observed that soil–pile–structure interaction influences in particular the high-rise structural behaviour significantly. The storey lateral displacements and inter-storey drift values are amplified because of increase in pile lateral displacement and rocking of raft foundation due to increase in number of storeys, reduction in relative density of soil and reduction in spacing of piles. The major effect of soil–pile–structure interaction on storey displacement and inter-storey drift is observed in lower and upper storey levels more particularly in the case of high-rise structures built on loose soil deposit with closely spaced pile foundations.


Soil–pile–structure interaction Spacing of piles Rocking of raft Storey lateral displacement Inter-storey drift 


  1. 1.
    Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2005) Dynamic behaviour of laterally loaded model piles in clay. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 158(GE4):207–215Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2007) An experimental study on static and dynamic bending behaviour of piles in soft clay. Geotech Geol Eng 25:177–189Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayashi Y, Takahashi I (2004) Soil structure interaction effects on building response in recent earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd UJNR workshop on soil–structure interaction. California, USA, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Nikolaou S, Michaelides O (2000) The role of soil on the collapse of collapse of 18 piers of the Hanshin expressway in the Kobe earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Auckland, New Zealand, 1074, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dash SR, Bhattacharya S (2015) Mechanism of failure of three pile-supported structures during three different earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering. Lisboa, Portugal, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tokimatsu K, Tamura S, Suzuki H, Katsumata K (2012) Building damage associated with geotechnical problems in the 2011 Tohoku Pacific earthquake. Soils Found 52(5):956–974Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IS 456:2000. Plain and reinforced concrete—code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    IS 1893 (Part 1) (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: General provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil–structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthquake Eng 4(3):277–301Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velestos AS, Meek JW (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:121–138Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun L, Xie W (2019) Experimental assessment of soil–structure interaction effects on a super long-span cable-stayed-bridge pile group foundations. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun L, Xie W (2019) Evaluation of pile–soil–structure interaction effects on the seismic responses of a super long-span cable-stayed bridge in the transverse direction: a shaking table investigation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105755Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haiyang Z, Jisai F, Xu Y, Su C, Xiaohui C (2019) Earthquake responses of a base-isolated structure on a multi-layered soft soil foundation by using shaking table tests. Eng Struct 179:79–91Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goktepe F, Celebi E, Omid AJ (2019) Numerical and experimental study on scaled soil–structure model for small shaking table tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 119:308–319Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang M, Kim JK (2019) Pseudo-dynamic test for soil–structure interaction analysis using shake tables. KSCE J Civ Eng 10:15–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kildashti K, Dolatshahi KM, Mirghaderi R (2016) A case study on the piles–soil–structure interaction of a long span arched structure. Struct Infrastruct Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patel KN, Amin JA (2018) Performance-based assessment of response reduction factor of RC-elevated water tank considering soil flexibility: a case study. Int J Adv Struct Eng 10:233–247Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sayed MA, Kwon O, Park D, Nguyen QV (2019) Multi-platform soil–structure interaction simulation of Daikai subway tunnel during the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105643Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anastasopoulos I, Sakellariadis L, Agalianos A (2015) Seismic analysis of motorway bridges accounting for key structural components and nonlinear soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 78:127–141Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forcellini D (2017) Seismic resilience of isolated bridge configurations with soil–structure interaction. Innov Infrast Sol 2(2):1–9Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dehghanpoor A, Thambiratnam D, Taciroglu E, Chan T (2019) Soil–pile–structure interaction effects in seismically isolated bridges under combined vertical and horizontal strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 126:105753Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Tabatabaiefar SHR, Samali B (2012) Effects of soil–pile–structure interaction on seismic response of moment resisting buildings on soft soil. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on new developments in soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. New East University, Nicosia, North CyprusGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghandil M, Behnamfar F (2017) Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:203–214Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Homaei F, Shakib H, Soltani M (2017) Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of vertically irregular steel building considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Civ Eng 10:15–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nguyen QV, Fatahi B, Hokmabadi AS (2017) Influence of size and load bearing mechanism of piles on seismic performance of buildings considering soil–pile–structure interaction. Int J Geomech 04017007:1–22Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tavakoli R, Kamgar R, Rahgozar R (2019) Seismic performance of outrigger-belt truss system considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Adv Struct Eng 11:45–54Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stefanidou SP, Sextos AG, Kotsoglou AN, Lesgidis N, Kappos AJ (2017) Soil–structure interaction effects in analysis of seismic fragility of bridges using an intensity-based ground motion selection procedure. Eng Struct 151:366–380Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bhure H, Sidh G, Gharad A (2018) Dynamic analysis of metro rail bridge subjected to moving loads considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Adv Struct Eng 10:285–294Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zangeneh A, Battini J, Pacoste C, Karoumi R (2019) Fundamental modal properties of simply supported railway bridges considering soil–structure interaction effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 121:212–218Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li M, Lu X, Ye L (2014) Influence of soil–structure interaction on collapse resistance of super-tall buildings. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:477–485Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cruz C, Miranda E (2017) Evaluation of soil–structure interaction effects on the damping ratios of buildings subjected to earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:183–195Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shakib H, Haomaei F (2017) Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of the soil–structure interaction effect on seismic response of mid-rise setback steel buildings. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sotiriadis D, Kostinakis K, Morfidis K (2017) Effects of nonlinear soil–structure interaction on seismic damage of 3D buildings on cohesive and friction soils. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farhadi N, Saffari H, Torkzadeh P (2018) Estimation of maximum and residual inter-storey drift in steel MRF considering soil–structure interaction from fixed base analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 114:85–96Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khosravikia F, Mahsuli M, Ghannad MA (2018) The effect of soil–structure interaction on the seismic risk to buildings. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ghosh R, Debbarma R (2019) Effect of slope angle variation on the structures resting on hilly region considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Adv Struct Eng 11:67–77Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xuefei Z, Shuguang W, Dongsheng D, Weiqing L (2017) Simplified analysis of frame structures with viscoelastic dampers considering the effect of soil–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16:199–217Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salvi J, Pioldi F, Rizzi E (2018) Optimum tuned mass dampers under seismic soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 114:576–597Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bekdas G, Kayabekir AE, Nigdeli SM, Toklu YC (2019) Transfer function amplitude minimization for structures with tuned mass dampers considering soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:552–562Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jia F, Jianwen L (2019) Performance degradation of tuned-mass-dampers arising from ignoring soil–structure interaction effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105701Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jaya V, Dodagoudar GR, Boominathan A (2009) Seismic soil–structure interaction analysis of ventilation stack structure. Indian Geotech J 39(1):116–134Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bhaumik L, Raychowdhury P (2013) Seismic response analysis of a nuclear reactor structure considering soil–structure interaction. Nucl Eng Des 265:1078–1090Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Colunga AT, Perez-Rocha LE, Aviles J, Macias CC (2015) Seismic isolation of buildings for power stations considering soil–structure interaction effects. J Build Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vatanchian M, Shooshtari A (2016) Investigation of soil–structure interaction effects on seismic response of a 5 MW wind turbine. Int J Civ Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ajamy A, Asgarian B, Ventura CE, Zolfaghari MR (2018) Seismic fragility analysis of jacket type offshore platforms considering soil–pile–structure interaction. Eng Struct 174:198–211Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Michel P, Butenweg C, Klinkel S (2018) Pile-grid foundations of onshore wind turbines considering soil–structure interaction under seismic loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 109:299–311Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC (2004) Assessing lateral period of building frames incorporating soil-flexibility. J Sound Vib 269:795–821Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dutta SC, Bhattacharya K, Roy R (2004) Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:893–914Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC, Roy R (2006) Seismic design aids for buildings incorporating soil-flexibility effect. J Asian Archit Build Eng 5(2):341–348Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Massumi A, Tabatabaiefar HR (2007) Effects of soil–structure interaction on seismic behaviour of ductile reinforced concrete frames. World housing congress Malaysia, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Massumi A, Tabatabaiefar HR (2008) A criterion for considering soil–structure interaction effects in seismic design of ductile RC-MRFs according to Iranian codes. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. Beijing, China, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tabatabaiefar HR, Massumi A (2010) A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1259–1267Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tabatabaiefar SHR, Fatahi B, Samali B (2013) Seismic behaviour of building frames considering dynamic soil–structure interaction. Int J Geomech 13(4):409–420Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Farghaly AA, Ahmed HH (2013) Contribution of soil–structure interaction to seismic response of buildings. KSCE J Civ Eng 17(5):959–971Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sharma N, Dasgupta K, Dey A (2018) A state-of-the-art review on seismic SSI studies on building structures. Innov Infrastruct Sol 3(22):1–16Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yingcai H (2002) Seismic response of tall building considering soil–pile–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 1(1):57–64Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (2004) Earthquake engineering from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chore HS, Ingle RK (2008) Interaction analysis of building frame supported on pile group. Indian Geotech J 38(4):483–501Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Chore HS, Ingle RK, Sawant VA (2009) Building frame-pile foundation-soil interactive analysis. Interact Multiscale Mech 2(4):397–411Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B (2014) Assessment of soil–pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Comput Geotech 55:172–186Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B (2016) Influence of foundation type on seismic performance of buildings considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 16:1550043-129Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fatahi B, Nguyen QV, Xu R, Sun W (2018) Three-dimensional response of neighbouring buildings sitting on pile foundations to seismic pounding. Int J Geomech 18(4):04018007-1-25Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    IS 875 (Part 3):2015. Design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures—code of practice for wind loads. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    IS 875 (Part 1):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures—dead loads—unit weights of building materials and stored materials. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    IS 875 (Part 2):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures—imposed loads. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    SAP2000 [Computer software]. Computers and Structures, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    PLAXIS 3D V.2017 [Computer software]. PLAXIS BV, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    PLAXIS Material Models Manual (2019). PLAXIS BV, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bathe KJ (2014) Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education. Inc., WatertownGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Horikoshi K, Matsumoto T, Hashizume Y, Watanabe T, Fukuyama H (2003) Performance of piled raft foundations subjected to static horizontal loads. Int J Phys Modell Geotechn 3(2):37–50Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kumar AS, Choudhary D, Katzenbach R (2016) Effect of earthquake on combined pile-raft foundation. Int J Geomech 16(5):04016013-1-16Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36(1):65–78Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Horikoshi K, Matsumoto T, Hashizume Y, Watanabe T (2003) Performance of piled raft foundations subjected to dynamic loading. Int J Phys Modell Geotech 3(2):51–62Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 2):2010. Design and construction of pile foundations—code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Park D, Park D, Lee J (2016) Analysing load response and load sharing behaviour of piled rafts installed with driven piles in sand. Comput Geotech 78:62–71Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report no. EERC 70-10., Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 112(11):1016–1032Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tabatabaiefar SHR, Fatahi B (2014) Idealization of soil–structure interaction system to determine inelastic seismic response of mid-rise building frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:339–351Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Raheem SEA, Ahmed MM, Alazrak TMA (2015) Evaluation of soil-foundation-structure interaction effects on seismic response demands of multi-story MRF buildings on raft foundations. Int J Adv Struct Eng 7:11–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringVellore Institute of TechnologyVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations