International Journal of Civil, Structural,

Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering

Research and Development (IJCSEIERD)
ISSN(P): 2249-6866; ISSN(E): 2249-7978
Vol. 4, Issue 6, Dec 2014, 1-10
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

INFLUENCE OF SOIL AND FRAMED BUILDING ON INTERSECTIONS

USING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS
BAQIR ABDUL REDHA MUBDER1, ANUPAM RAWAT2 & Y K BIND3
1
2
3

Reasearch Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, MNNIT, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SHIATS, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
In the present study the soil interaction analysis was simulated using finite element method (FEM). The soil was
considered as isotropic, homogenous and continuum material which is used to support foundation and superstructure.
The raft foundation was chosen for ease of analysis as it may be treated as part of foundation soil itself due to its
continuous associativity with the soil. The foundation soil and raft were modeled using the 4-noded isotropic element
(4-noded 182 elements) whereas superstructure was modeled using two-dimensional, 2-noded beam element
(2D-elastic element).A framed building was analyzed with constant factors such as no. floors and loading intensity etc.
For this purpose, two sections between superstructure and raft and between raft and soil were considered. The effect
of modulus of elasticity (E) of soil on deformations, stresses and strain was determined and compared. The stresses and
strains were determined separately for concrete in raft and for the soil in the foundation.

KEYWORDS: Finite Element Method (FEM), Isotropic, Homogenous, Continuum Raft and Modulus of Elasticity
I. INTRODUCTION
Soil structure interaction (SSI) is the study of effects of structure on soil and effects of soil on structure.
The integrated effect of substructure and superstructure on foundation soil and effect of foundation soil on its immediate
structure that is raft and super structure is studied in SSI analysis. However, this complex problem is always analyzed in
separate parts to avoid the intrinsic complexity of treating SSI as a whole. Researchers usually follow two approach to
simulate the actual field SSI problem, either they apply rigorous models to the superstructure and consider soil simply as a
rigid base or they apply rigorous mechanical models to the soil and consider the structure as a simple two-dimensional
frame. In both the cases, either the raft can be considered as integral part of superstructure or foundation soil. Soil-structure
interaction (SSI) effects are sometimes neglected by the use of a structural model supported on a fixed base Edgers et al
2005.
1.1FEM Analysis
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of modulus of elasticity of soil on soil structure interaction of
building for fixed values of building parameters. ANSYS 12.0 software based on the finite element method was used for 2
D static linear analysis of the structure and soil continuum. Structural members such as beams and columns were modeled
as beam elements and soil was modeled as solid elements. 2D elastic element was used as beam element and 4-noded 182
element was used as solid element for soil. The geometric model of the problem was formulated by creating a

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Baqir Abdul Redha Mubder, Anupam Rawat & Y K Bind

2- dimensional mesh for soil. Finite element methods of analysis have vast applicability in the structural engineering and it
has found its way in the field of soil structure interaction in the recent past for the solution of dynamic behavior of concrete
gravity arch dam (Berrabah et al 2012),SSI analysis for spatially incoherent seismic free field motion (Zentnerand &
Devesa 2011), seismic SSI analysis of a massive concrete structure (Rajasankar et al 2007), 3-D efficient SSI analysis in
time domain (Chen and Tang 2011) and Pile-Soil Interface (Jalaliet al 2012) etc.

2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Finite element method is categorized as a numerical procedure for analyzing structure and soil continuum
(Dutta et al 1999, Desai 2000). It is a powerful tool in analyzing simple to complicated structure. Further, the numerical
simulation methods can be divided into three types, such as substructure method(Chopra 1969),finite element method and
hybrid method (Toki 1977).The advent of modern computers has simplified the job of performing finite element analysis
of complicated structures. The finite element program (ANSYS) is one of such powerful tools in finite element method of
analysis, which have been applied in the present study.
The finite element method treats soil continuum as an assemblage of discrete elements whose boundaries are
defined by nodal points. The response of the soil continuum can be described by the response of the nodal points finite
element method.
The conventional method of analysis such as moment distribution method, slope deflection method and strain
energy method etc. gives the deformations, stress, strains etc. at certain fixed location of structure. However, finite element
method can monitor these parameters on any nodes of the structure. It indicates the clear the advantages of finite element
method over conventional method as measures can easily be monitored at any location.

3. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The building with raft foundation and soil continuum has been considered for two dimensional finite element
analyses. The section, above the raft foundation (between structure and raft) and below the raft foundation
(between raft and soil) was taken for the comparative assessment of deformation, stresses and strain. The building
parameters were fixed as provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Building Parameters Used in Modeling
Building Parameters
Number of stories
Loading conditions
self-weight of soil
variations of materials properties

Assumptions
Dead Load + Live
Load + Wind Load
Negligible
Linear

Adopted Values
5
Live Load =3000 N/m2
Wind Load = 1260 N/m2 up to
10m & 1430 N/m2above 10 m
(as per IS:875 Part 3- 1987)
Negligible
Linear

4. MATERIALS PROPERTIES
Two different types of materials were considered in finite element modeling. It was assumed that superstructure
and raft is made of concrete and soil itself was considered below raft. The unit weights of the superstructure & raft was
assumed as 25 x1010 N/m3.The assumed material properties of are shown in Table 2.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7179

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Influence of Soil and Framed Building on Intersections Using Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

Table 2: Material Properties Used in Modeling

Material
Superstructure & Raft

Soil

Youngs Modulus (N/M2)

2.24x1010
7
2.5 x 10
4.0 x 107
5.5 x 107 Constant = 0.32
7.0 x 107
8.5 x 107

5. TYPE OF ELEMENT USED

In finite element modeling, raft and soil was modeled using 4-noded solid element (PLANE 182 Element).
2-noded beam elements (2-D Elastic 3 Element) was used for the superstructure modeling. The elements used for the
modeling were lower order element with linear behavior.
5.1.2-D ELSATIC 3 Element (Beam 3)
The element is defined by two nodes, the cross-sectional area, the area moment of inertia, the height, and the
material properties. The initial strain in the element (ISTRN) is given by /L, where is the change in the element length
at zero strain and original length L (as defined by the I and J node locations). The initial strain is also used in calculating
the stress stiffness matrix if any for the first cumulative iteration.
BEAM 3 is a uniaxial element with tension, compression, and bending capabilities. The element has three degrees
of freedom at each node; translations in the nodal x and y directions and rotation about the nodal z-axis. The real constants
for 2-D ELASTIC 3 Element were; cross-section area of beam = 0.1575 m2, moment of inertia of beam = 2.6578 x 10-3 m4,
depth of beam = 0.45 m.
5.2 PLANE 182 Element
PLANE 182 is used for 2-D modeling of solid structure. Therefore, this element was adopted for modeling soil.
The element can be used as either a plane element (plane stress, plane strain a generalized plane strain) or an axisymmetric
element. It is defined by four nodes having two degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x and y
directions. The element has plasticity, hyper-elasticity, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities.
It also has mixed formulation capability for simulating deformations of nearly incompressible elasto-plastic materials, and
fully incompressible hyper-elastic materials. The real constants for PLANE 182 Element were defined in finite element
program (ANSYS). Figure 1

Figure 1: Plane 182 Element for Raft and Soil

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Baqir Abdul Redha Mubder, Anupam Rawat & Y K Bind

6. GEOMETRIC MODELING AND MESHING

First, the key points were created and joined by lines. Then these lines were joined to create the area to represent
the soil and raft foundation. The mesh can be modeled in ANSYS without specifying any mesh size controls. Therefore,
free meshing was carried out for soil material and mapped meshing was done for raft. The movement of considered soil
continua was prevented in x and y direction by providing the hinge Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Adopted Soil, Raft and Superstructure Model

7. ADOPTION OF MODEL
The optimum model was obtained by iteration process. The model was first prepared with coarser size of mesh
and deformations, stresses and strains were determined. The size of mesh was reduced and deformations, stresses and
strains were again determined. The iteration was repeated till the parameters were optimized. The Finite element
idealization of superstructure, raft foundation and soil is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Fem Idealization

The results of 2-D static numerical analysis in the forms of deformation, stress, strain are presented in the
subsequent literature.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

As explained in the previous chapter, finite element method has been applied for modeling. The Finite element
method treats continua as a assemblage of discrete elements whose boundaries are defined by nodal points. In finite

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7179

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Influence of Soil and Framed Building on Intersections Using Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

element method it is assumed that the response of the continue can be described by the response of the nodal point.
The results of 2-D static analysis are presented in the form of deformation, stresses and strain. The multistoried buildings
with above discussed superstructure, substructure and foundation soil characteristics was analyzed and results were
determined under representative loads on two sections first, above the raft foundation (between structure and raft) and
second below the raft foundation (between raft and soil). The results above and below the raft give two types of interactive
analysis8.1 Soil Structure Interaction
8.1.1 Influence of Modules of Elasticity on Deformation
The deformations produced under the raft foundation have been shown in figure 4 for when interaction between
soil structure initiates. Figure shows that when the modules of elasticity of soil increases the deformation decreases as
stiffness of soil increases. It can also be seen that deformation also decreases as the distances of the sections in the positive
x-direction increases.

Figure 4: Deformation on Various Sections (E Variable)

It resembles that if the modulus of elasticity of soil increased, the load carrying capacity of soil also increases.
It has also been observed that with the change in modulus of elasticity of soil (Es), the behavior of deformation in
non-linear.
8.1.2 Influence of Modules of Elasticity on Stresses (for Concrete)
The stresses produced in materials 1 (concrete) under the raft foundation have been shown in figure 5. This graph
indicates when the modules of elasticity of soil increased the stresses in concrete decreases as well as stiffness of soil
increased. It is because of the increased modules of elasticity enables the soil to share the stresses with concrete. It has also
been observed that the change in E value, the behavior of stress is linear. The stresses in the concrete initially increases and
starts decreasing after mid span.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Baqir Abdul Redha Mubder, Anupam Rawat & Y K Bind

Figure 5: Stress in Concrete on Various Sections (E Variable)

8.1.3 Influence of Modulus of Elasticity of Stress (for Soil)
The stresses produced in material 2 (soil) under the raft foundation have been shown in figure 6 when the
interaction under the raft foundation starts between foundation and soil.

Figure 6: Stress in Soil on Various Sections (E Variable)

When modulus of elasticity of soil increases, the stresses on the edges increases. However, stresses decreases with
the increases in modulus of elasticity on the mid span. Stresses on the edges are slightly higher than in mid span. It has also
been observed that the change in E value, the behavior of stress in linear.
8.1.4 Influence of Modulus of Elasticity on Strains (for Concrete)
The strains produced in materials 1 (concrete) under the raft foundation have been shown in figure 7.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7179

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Influence of Soil and Framed Building on Intersections Using Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

Figure 7: Strain in Concrete on Various Sections (E Variable)

For interactive case, when the modulus of elasticity of soil increased the strains in the concrete decreases due to
increases in the stiffness of soil. It has also been observed that the behavior of strain is linear (approx.) with variable E
values.
8.1. 5 Influence of Modulus of Elasticity on Strains (for Soil)
The strains produced in materials 2 (soil) under the raft foundation have been shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Strain in Soil on Various Sections (E Variable)

For interactive case, when the modules of elasticity of soil increased the strains decreases due to increase in the
stiffness of soil. It has also been observed that the behavior of strains is linear (approx.) with variable E values.
8.2 Structure-Structure Interactions
8.2.1 Influence of Modules of Elasticity of Deformation
The deformations produced above the raft foundation have been shown in figure 9 for interactive and
non-interactive case. Figure 4 shows that when the modulus of elasticity of soil increased the deformation decreases as well
as stiffness of soil increases.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Baqir Abdul Redha Mubder, Anupam Rawat & Y K Bind

Figure 9: Deformation on Various Sections (E Variable)

It is for the reason that that if the modules of elasticity of soil increased, the load carrying capacity of soil also
increases. It has also been observed that the change in E value, the behavior of deformation is non-linear. Deformation also
decreases with the increase in the distance of the sections in the horizontal direction.
8. 2. 2Influence of Modulus of Elasticity on Stresses
The stresses produced above the raft foundation have been shown in Figure 10 after the interaction between
structures. It indicates that when the modulus of elasticity of soil increased the stresses in the concrete decreased due to
increase in the stiffness of the soil. It has also been observed that the stresses are higher in the mid span. Behavior of stress
is linear with the change in E value.

Figure 10: Stress on Various Sections (E Variable)

8.2.3 Influence of Modulus of Elasticity of Strains
The strains produced above the raft foundation have been shown in Figure 11 after interaction between structures.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7179

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Influence of Soil and Framed Building on Intersections Using Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

Figure 11: Stress on Various Sections (E Variable)

For interactive case, when the modulus of elasticity of soil increased the strains decreased due to increase in the
stiffness of soil. It has also been observed that the behavior of strain in liner (approx.) with variable E value.

9. CONCLUSIONS
Based on detailed linear finite element analysis of five story-framed building it can be concluded that variation of
modulus of elasticity of soil significantly affects the behavior at the sections between structure-structure and structure-soil.
Increase in modulus of elasticity of soil decreases the deformation for both types of interactions. Increase in modulus of
elasticity of soil increases the stresses in soil due to increases in stiffness of soil. However, stresses in concrete decreases in
soil-interaction case. Similarly, the increase in the modulus of elasticity of soil decreases the strains in the concrete as well
in the soil due to increases in the stiffness of soil.
Finally, it can be concluded that performance parameters enhances with the increase in modulus of elasticity.
However, sometimes-ideal interaction pattern was not observed for generated strains due to complexity of soil-structure
interaction.

10. REFERENCES
1.

Edgers, L, Sanayei, M, Joseph L. & Alonge, J. L. (2005). Modeling the effects of soil-structure interaction on a
tall building bearing on a mat foundation. Boston Society of Civil Engineering Section, ASCE, Civil Engineering
Practice (fall/winter) 51-68.

2.

Berrabah, A. T, Armouti, N, Belharizi, M. & Bekkouche, A. (2012). Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction Study.
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 6, No. 2, 161-173.

3.

Zentner, I & Devesa, G. (2011). A methodology for soil-structure interaction analysis accounting for spatially
incoherent seismic free field motion. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics,
EURODYN 2011, Leuven, Belgium.

4.

Rajasankar, J, Iyer1, n. R, Swamy, b. Y, Gopalakrishnan, N. & Chellapandi, P. (2007). SSI analysis of a massive
concrete structure based on anovel convolution/deconvolution technique, Sadhana,Indian Academy of
Sciences,Vol. 32, Part 3, June, pp. 215234.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

10

Baqir Abdul Redha Mubder, Anupam Rawat & Y K Bind

5.

Chen, S & Tang, G. (2011). Three-dimensional efficient analysis of soil-structure interaction in time domain.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011 Leuven, Belgium.

6.

Jalali1, M. M, Golmaei, S. H, Jalali1 M. R, Borthwick1, A, Ahmadi, M. K. Z. & Moradi R. (2012). Using Finite
Element method for Pile-Soil Interface (through PLAXIS and ANSYS). Journal of Civil Engineering and
Construction Technology Vol. 3(10), pp. 256-272.

7.

Dutta SC, Bhattacharya G. & Mitra D. (1999). Effect of soil- structure interaction on building games. Proc Indian
Geotechnical Conference 1: 123-6.

8.

Desai, C. S. & Abel, J. F. (2000). Introduction to finite element method, reprint, BS Publisher and Distribution,
New Delhi.

9.

Chopra A.K, Perumalswami PR. (1969). Dam-foundation interaction during earthquakes. Proceedings of
4thWorld Conference Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.

10. Toki K. & Sato T. (1977). Seismic response analysis of surface layer with irregular boundaries. Proceedings of
6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7179

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0