PhD Oral Examination

by
Vivek B.
(11103169)
IIT Kanpur, India

Thesis supervisor: Dr. Prishati Raychowdhury

 Soil-structure Interaction (SSI)

RIGID BASE
Soil half space

Response dictated by interactions between:

Structure
Foundation
Underlying soil/rock

2
 Importance of Incorporating SSI
• Deformations of foundation flexibility to the structure altering mode shapes
and natural period of the structure provide a very useful mechanism for
dissipating energy (i.e., increased damping)
• Results in alteration in force, displacement and ductility demands of the structure

SLIDING
MECHANISM
  OF
ALTERING THE DISSIPATING
SETTLEMENT ENERGY
MODE SHAPES
AND NATURAL
PERIOD

ROTATION
3
 Research on SSI

Centrifuge experiments

Experimental
Mass shaker experiments
Investigations
Shake Table experiments

Continuum approach

Analytical Macro-element approach

Investigations
Winkler-based approach
4
 Mass shaker experiments
 Eccentric mass shaker capable of delivering
a sinusoidal forcing function.

Algie et al, 2010 5

 Mass shaker experiments - selected literature
Authors Year Details of the study
Baidya and Rathi 2004 Conducted dynamic tests on shallow concrete footing using a
vertically acting rotating-mass type mechanical oscillator; they
observed that the resonant frequency and the radiation damping of
the sand layer was affected by the presence of a rigid layer at bottom

Baidya et al. 2006 Investigated the dynamic response of foundations resting on layered
soil deposit, where the experimental outcomes are utilized to
validate analytical models

Algie et al. 2010 Conducted tests on rocking shallow foundations, and the foundations
displayed good energy dissipation during the rocking cycles

Anastasopoulous 2012 A series of reduced-scale monotonic and slow-cyclic pushover tests

are conducted on SDOF systems lying on a square surface
foundation, and the effectiveness of shallow soil improvement is
ameliorated with the increase of cyclic rotation amplitude
Kokkali et al. 2014 Investigated the performance of the shallow foundation during
lateral and cyclic loading to establish the relationship between the 1-
g model scale and 50-g centrifuge testing

6
 Shake table experiments
 Rigid boxes, flexible boxes, or laminar containers used to hold the soil
 Placed on a shaking table to simulate vertical shear-wave propagation during shaking
through a soil layer of finite thickness.

7
Tang ang Ling (2014)
 Shake table experiments - selected literature
Authors Year Details of the study

Maugeri et al. 2000 Performed shake table tests on a shallow strip footing resting on a dry
cohesionless soil subjected to eccentrically applied loading; a reduction
in seismic bearing capacity is observed with introducing eccentricity
Knappett et al. 2004 Conducted a series of experiments on a one-g shake to measure seismic
deformations and observed the failure mechanism of a shallow
foundation using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) combined with high-
speed videography and photogrammetry
Turan et al. 2009 Designed a single axis laminar shear box where a series of shaking table
tests, and showed that the laminar box did not impose significant
boundary effects and is able to maintain 1-D soil column behavior
Qin & Chouw 2010 Conducted shake table tests to investigate the response of an SDOF
system; the results showed that uplift of structures decreased bending
moment and horizontal acceleration but increased displacement
Lombardi & 2012 Performed shake table tests on a box made of soft materials like
Bhattacharya sponge along the end walls for partial reduction of reflection of the waves
Hokmabadi 2015 Conducted experiments on a 10-storey moment-resisting frame
et al. supported on shallow mat foundations resting on different soil types.
Performed tests with similar test-up with varying footing conditions such
as fixed base, shallow foundation and piles
8
 Winkler-based discrete element model

Chopra and Yim (1985)

Winkler-based Foundation
from FEMA 356 (2000)

9
 Winkler-type modeling of SSI - selected literature
Authors Year Details of the study
Psycharis 1981 Developed a two-spring model and a distributed Winkler spring model,
where nonlinearity at the foundation interface was considered by
viscous dampers, elastic-perfectly plastic springs, and an impact
mechanism allowing dissipation of energy
Chopra and 1985 Presented an analytical study evaluating the rocking response of an
Yim SDOF system considering uplifting of the foundation; observed that for
a multi-story building structure, the foundation flexibility have little
effect on higher modes
Allotey and 2007 Adopted a Winkler-based modeling concept for capturing the cyclic
Naggar response of shallow foundations using piece-wise linear backbone
curves; the can capture the moment-rotation and settlement behavior
well
Raychowdhury 2009 The soil-foundation interface is assumed to be an assembly of discrete,
and nonlinear elements composed of springs, dashpots and gap elements;
Hutchinson spring backbone curves typically used for modeling soil-pile response
are taken as a baseline and further modified for their usefulness in
shallow footing modeling
Bhaumik and 2013 Nonlinear Winkler model is used for performance assessment of
Raychowdhury shearwall component of a reactor building

10
 Design code provisions
• IS 1893 (2004):
Factors Dv and Dm are the distribution factors for the
shear and moment that accounts the flexibility in the
design base shear and moment base on the soil
foundation conditions

• ASCE (2010), FEMA (2003) and NEHRP (2000):

[ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers, FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency,
NEHRP: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program]

Reduced base shear of the structure vibrating in the

fundamental mode is accounted as:

Structural distortion due to SSI: 11

 Design code provisions
Modified period and damping due to SSI:

NEHRP (2000)

12
 Limitations of the previous research
• Most of the experimental studies considered SDOF system,
which may not adequately represent dynamic characteristics
of a multi-storey structure, specially during high frequency
vibrations, where possibility of higher mode contribution may
increase
• None of the previous studies have investigated the dynamic
SSI behavior of MDOF systems excited in their fundamental
and higher mode frequencies
• A comprehensive experimental study with varying relevant
parameters such as soil relative density, embedment depth,
structure type and vertical factor of safety is not available in
the literature

13
 Objectives of the present study

 To experimentally investigate the effect of base flexibility on

period and damping characteristics of low to medium-rise
buildings
 To carry out resonant vibration tests to understand the effect
of SSI on structural force and drift demands
 To carry out shake table tests for different Indian earthquake
motions to understand the foundation rocking effects on
various structural demand parameters.
 To develop a numerical model capable of capturing the
experimentally observed SSI behavior

14
 Road-map of the work
Design and fabricate 3D models of Design and commission a flexible
the 3 and 6-storey frame building laminar soil box for shake table tests

Develop the numerical model in Free-field tests to calibrate the

OpenSees and choose proper loading box and characterize the soil bed
protocol based on the analysis

Shake table experiments on the soil-

Impact hammer tests for dynamic foundation-structure systems
characterization of the system

Comparison between experiment

Lateral cyclic tests using mass and analysis
shaker

15
Selection of structure,
foundation and soil

16
 Prototype building details

Particulars 3 Storey 6 Storey

Floor height 3m 3m
Bay size 6mx6m 6mx6m
Material Steel Steel
Columns ISMB600 ISMB600
Beams ISMB500 ISMB500
Typical Floor load 35 kN 35 kN Particulars 3 Storey 6 Storey
Top floor load 20 kN 20 kN Footing size 1m x 1m 1m x 1m
Earthquake load As per IS1893 As per IS1893 Bearing capacity 235.38 kPa 235.38 kPa
Damping 0.02 0.02 Fos 2.7 1.4
Base Shear 310.5 kN 268.5 kN 17
Time period 0.57 s 1.06 s
Similitude relationship – model structure

β = 10
 Model structure-foundation systems

3-storey
6-storey

19
Properties of Ganga sand used in the study

Preparation of sand bed 20

Impact hammer tests for system
characterization

21
Signal analyzer Experimental Set-up
Accelerometer

Impact
hammer

22
 Load case Load on
Exp No. Model Base condition D/B
(LC) footing (N)
E-1 LC1_3S 101.28 Fixed base -
E-2 LC2_3S 185.89 Fixed base -
E-3 LC3_3S 248.12 Fixed base -
E-4 LC4_3S 297.48 Fixed base -
E-5 LC1_3S 101.28 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
E-6 LC2_3S 185.89 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
E-7 LC3_3S 248.12 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
E-8 3 storey model LC4_3S 297.48 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
E-9 LC1_3S 101.28 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0
Experiment details

E-10 LC2_3S 185.89 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0

E-11 LC3_3S 248.12 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0
E-12 LC4_3S 297.48 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0
E-13 LC1_3S 101.28 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0.5
E-14 LC2_3S 185.89 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0.5
E-15 LC3_3S 248.12 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0.5
E-16 LC4_3S 297.48 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0.5
E-17 LC1_3S 101.28 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-18 LC2_3S 185.89 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-19 LC3_3S 248.12 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-20 LC4_3S 297.48 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-21 LC1_6S 207.09 Fixed base -
E-22 LC2_6S 245.71 Fixed base - Structure on sand Fixed base structure
E-23 LC3_6S 295.07 Fixed base -
E-24 LC4_6S 333.70 Fixed base -
E-25 LC1_6S 207.09 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
E-26
E-27
LC2_6S
LC3_6S
245.71
295.07 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5
Parameters considered:
E-28 LC4_6S 333.70 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0.5  Type of structure
6 storey model

E-29 LC1_6S 207.09 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0

E-30 LC2_6S 245.71 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0  Base condition
 Relative density of sand
E-31 LC3_6S 295.07 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0
E-32 LC4_6S 333.70 Dense sand (Rd = 80%) 0
E-33
E-34
LC1_6S
LC2_6S
207.09
245.71
Loose sand (Rd = 40%)
Loose sand (Rd = 40%)
0.5
0.5
 Depth of embedment
E-35 LC3_6S 295.07 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0.5  Vertical factor of safety
E-36 LC4_6S 333.70 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0.5
E-37 LC1_6S 207.09 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-38 LC2_6S 245.71 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-39 LC3_6S 295.07 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
E-40 LC4_6S 333.70 Loose sand (Rd = 40%) 0
23
 Check for boundary effect

0.01
Acceleration (g)

Record of A4
Record of A5
-0.01
Record of A6

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6

Time (s) 24
 Frequency response functions

3 Storey 6 Storey

25
 Mode shapes

26
 Experimental result: natural period
(a) Fundamental Mode (b) Second Mode
0.3 0.08

0.07
0.25
Period (s)

0.06 3-storey
D/B = 0
0.2 }
Df/B = 0.5 Loose sand
0.05 Df/B = 0
}
Df/B = 0.5 Dense sand
Fixed base
0.15 0.04
80 160 240 320 80 160 240 320
Vertical load on footing (N) Vertical load on footing (N)

(a) Fundamental Mode (b) Second Mode

0.45 0.14
D/B = 0
Df/B = 0.5 } Loose sand
Df/B = 0
0.13
Df/B = 0.5 } Dense sand
Fixed base
0.4
6-storey
Period (s)

0.12

0.11
0.35
0.1

0.3 0.09
200 240 280 320 360 200 240 280 320 360
27
Vertical load on footing (N) Vertical load on footing (N)
 Experimental result: damping ratio
6
Damping ratio (%)

3-storey
4

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
E- E- E- E- E- E- E- E- E- E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-2
Experiment number

6
Damping ratio (%)

6-storey
4

0
21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -26 -27 -28 -29 -30 -31 -32 -33 -34 -35 -36 -37 -38 -39 -40
E- E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Experiment number 28
Relation between period elongation and damping ratio

6.0 3-storey
6-storey
y = 29.13*x - 27.82
R2 = 0.7833
Damping ratio (%)

5.0

4.0
y = 5.29*x - 2.50
R2 = 0.8119

3.0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Period elongation ratio
29
Vivek and Raychowdhury (2017): International Journal of Geomechanics (ASCE)
Lateral cyclic tests using mass
shaker

30
Experimental Set-up

31
 Frame 2 Frame 1

Particulars Instruments used Symbol

Uniaxial PCB
Accelerometers piezotronics A
Honeywell
Displacement Spring LVDT L
transducers Wire ports WP
Load Cells S-type LC
Strain Gauge 2 mm gauge SG 32
Untied Base Tied Base Fixed Base

33
Details of the experimental program

VIDEO 34
 Experimental results: structural response
(A) STORY DISPLACEMENT (B) FLOOR ACCELERATION (C) COLUMN MOMENT
3
5% ∆y
10% ∆y  Flexibility and relative height of
15% ∆y
20% ∆y structure influence the story
2 displacement, floor acceleration
Story Number

and column moment profile

1  The displacement profile of the

shorter and stiffer 3-story
3-story 3-story 3-story
structure shows almost a linear
0 deformation profile, whereas,
0 1 2 3 0 0.16 0
the slender 6-story structure
0.04 0.08 0.12 1 2 3
6
5% ∆y
shows a nonlinear deformation
10% ∆y
5
15% ∆y
profile along its height
20% ∆y
4
Story Number

 The first and second stories of

3 the 6-story structure are more
critical than the higher stories
2
as there is a steeper rate of
change in story displacements
6-story 6-story 6-story
1
in these locations
0
0 1 2 3 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0 1 2 3
Story displacement (mm) Floor acceleration (g) Column moment (Nm)
35
Experimental results: effect of SSI

 Structure with untied footings

shows most flexibility and larger
deformations.

 At the roof level, the acceleration

reduces as much as 33% for the 3-
story and 50% for the 6-story
building from fixed base to the
untied base condition.

 For the 3-story structure, base

moment reduces 56% and 74%
from fixed base condition to tied
and untied base condition,
respectively. For the 6-story
structure, these reductions are 58%
and 72% for the tied and untied
base, respectively.

36
 Experimental results: effect of tuning ratio
(A) STORY DISPLACEMENT (B) COLUMN MOMENT
6

1st Mode Tuning 1st Mode Tuning

5
Untied - 2% ∆/∆y
Untied - 5% ∆/∆y
4 Tied - 2% ∆/∆y
6
1st Mode 2nd Mode
Story Number

Tied - 5% ∆/∆y
Fixed - 2% ∆/∆y
3 5
Fixed - 5% ∆/∆y

2 4

Story Number
1
3
Fixed base
0 SSI-Untied
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 2
Normalized Displacement, ∆/∆roof Normalized Moment, M/Mbase

6
1
2nd Mode Tuning
2nd Mode Tuning
5
0
0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -
4
Normalized φn Normalized φ n
Story Number

3 Mode shapes obtained from hammer test

2

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normalized Displacement, ∆/∆roof Normalized Moment, M/Mbase 37
Experimental results: foundation response
4 4
3-story: Untied base 3-story: Tied base

2 2

Moment (N-m)
0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002
4 4
6-story: Untied base 6-story: Tied base

2 2
Moment (N-m)

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)
25
3-story: Tied base
20 3-story: Untied base
6-story: Tied base
ζrocking (%)

6-story: Untied base

15

10

0 38
5 10 15 20
∆/∆y (%)
Experimental results: foundation response
Time(s) Time(s)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250
0

3-story 6-story
-1 -1

Settlement (mm)
ed
Ti

-2 -2

Untied

-3 Record of L5 ed -3 Record of L5
Ti d
Record of L6 tie Record of L6
Un
Record of L7 Record of L7
Record of L8 Record of L8
-4 -4

39
Check for boundary effect in cyclic tests

0.02
Record of P1
Record of P2
Record of P3
Record of P4
0.01
Acceleration (g)

-0.01

-0.02
0 5 10 15
Time (s) 40
Design and calibration of laminar
soil box

41
Details of laminar container components

Components Materials Dimensions (mm) Quantity

Lamina Hollow Steel box 96 x 49 x 3 15
Outer frame Hollow Steel box 50 x 50 x 2.6 2
Guide rods Steel plate 40 x 2035 x 5 32
Stiffener Hollow Steel box 35 x 35 x 2.6 8
Membrane Thin plastic 0.2 thick
Base Wooden 1600 x 1100 x 16 1
42
Bearing Steel φ 50 90
Details of laminar container components

43
Experiments on Ganga sand bed (without structure)

44
 Chamba EQ
Xizang EQ
2 Hz

5 Hz

Uttarkashi EQ Chamoli EQ

10 Hz

Input motions

sand bed preparation 45

Instrumentation of laminar box
Accelerometer inside the soil

A 20

Accelerometer
outside lamina

Displacement transducers

A- Accelerometers D- Displacement transducers

46
 Calibration of box
0.2
Record of A16
Record of A18

Acceleration (g)
0.1

-0.1
Check for boundary effects in X-X direction (a)
-0.2

0.2
Record of A18
Acceleration (g)

0.1 Record of A19

-0.1
Check for boundary effects in Y-Y direction (b)
-0.2

0.2
Record of A16
Record of A20
Acceleration (g)

0.1

-0.1
check for out-of-plane vibration (c)
-0.2
0 2 4 6 8
47
Time (s)
 Some typical results

0.8 Test # HM-07 Test # HM-08

1
Acceleration (g)

0.4

0 0

-0.4
-1
-0.8

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

0.6 0.6
Test # EQM-03 Test # EQM-04
0.3
Acceleration (g)

0.3

0
0

-0.3 Record of A0 -0.3

Record of A16
-0.6
0 2 4 6 -0.6
Time (s) 4 6 8
Time (s)

48
 Acceleration and displacement amplification
80

60
Height from base (cm)

HM-01
40 HM-02
HM-05
HM-06
HM-07
HM-08
20 EQM-01
EQM-02
EQM-03
EQM-04

0
1 1.5 2 1 2 3 4
Acceleration amplification Displacement amplification

49
 Shear stress- strain behavior of soil
4
HM-01 HM-02 HM-03
Shear stress (kPa)

-2

-4
4
HM-04 HM-05 HM-06 Seismic excitations
Shear stress (kPa)

2 EQM-01: Xizang 2 EQM-02: Chamba

0 PGA = 0.078g PGA = 0.146g

Shear stress (kPa)

1 1
-2
0 0

-4 -1
-0.4 0 0.4 -1
4 Shear strain (%)
HM-08 -2 -2
HM-07
Shear stress (kPa)

2 -0.02 0 0.02 -0.02 0 0.02

0 EQM-03: Uttarkashi
2 2 EQM-04: Chamoli
PGA = 0.253g PGA = 0.359g

-2 Shear stress (kPa) 1 1

0 0
-4
-0.4 0 0.4 -0.4 0 0.4
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%) -1 -1

-2
Harmonic excitations
-2

-0.02 0 0.02 -0.02 0 50 0.02

Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)
Shake table experiments on soil-
foundation systems

51
 Experimental setup

3-storey model on sand bed 6-storey model on sand bed 6-storey model with fixed base
52
Instrumentation
LVDT’s

Accelerometers

Floor mass
connections

Data
acquisition
system
53
 Experiment details

54
Test video
Data processing and filtering

55
 Some typical time history records

56
Some typical time history records – at footing level

3- storey: Untied case 3- storey: Tied case

57
Moment-rotation behavior at foundation level

58
Shear-sliding behavior at foundation level

59
Damping through rocking and sliding

Damping ratio increases with

increasing lateral load intensity

The average equivalent viscous

damping due to rocking for the 3-
storey structure with untied base
is about 32.5% as compared to
the 22% for the structure with
tied base.

The average equivalent viscous

damping due to sliding for the 3-
storey structure with untied base
is about 38% as compared to the
23% for the structure with tied
base.

60
 Selected results – peak responses
Chamba Uttarkashi

Chamba Uttarkashi

61
 Kinematic interaction effect

Chamba Uttarkashi

62
Numerical modeling

63
 Numerical modeling of SSI

(A) 3-storey structure on untied footings (B) 3-storey structure on tied footings

Structural modeling details q-z springs

p-x springs
p-y springs t-z springs
1.0 1.0 1.0
Normalized Load, Q/Qult

Normalized Load, P/Pult

Normalized Load, T/Tult

0.5 0.5
0.5

0.0 0.0

0.0
-0.5 -0.5

-0.5 -1.0 -1.0

-8 0 8 16 -16 -8 0 8 16 -16 -8 0 8 16
Vertical Displacement (mm) Horizontal Displacement (mm) Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Soil-foundation interface springs

64
 Comparison between experiment and analysis
(Impact hammer tests)
Period elongation ratio due to SSI

Damping and damping amplification due to SSI

65
 Comparison between experiment and analysis
(Mass shaker tests)

This deviation of
predicted peak moment
and rotation is less at low
drift level excitations and
increases at the higher
drift level excitations.

 The deviation of
predicted peak moment
from the measured peak
6 0.003 moment varies between
1:1 line 1:1 line 0.9% to 35.14%.
Rotation_Experiment (rad)
Moment_Experiment (Nm)

0.002
The deviation of
4

predicted peak moment

2 0.001
from the measured peak
rotation is 0.03% to 24.5%
3-storey 3-storey
6-storey 6-storey
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 66
Moment_Analysis (Nm) Rotation_Analysis (rad)
Comparison between experiment and analysis
(Shake table tests)

Structural response corresponding

to S3-HM1 with Untied base, S3-
HM4 for tied base and S3-HM7 for
fixed base experiment (Amax=0.05g
and frequency=5 Hz)

Footing response corresponding to

S3-HM1 experiment (Amax=0.05g
and frequency=5 Hz)

67
Comparison between experiment and analysis
(Shake table tests)

68
 Comparison between experiment and analysis
(Free-field tests in shake table)
80
HM-05 HM-07

Numerical modeling of free-field soil in SHAKE 60

Height from base (cm)

40

20

0
0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Acceleration amplification Acceleration amplification

80
EQM-02 EQM-03

Numerical modeling of free-field soil in OpenSees

60

Height from base (cm)

40

20
Experiment
SHAKE analysis
OpenSees analysis
0
0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Acceleration amplification Acceleration amplification
69
Comparison between experiment and analysis
(Free-field tests in shake table)

Soil Amplification Deviation from Exp (%)

Peak base
Test
acceleration
Case Experiment SHAKE Opensees SHAKE Opensees
(g)

HM 1 0.032 1.07 1.08 1.05 0.99 1.66

HM 2 0.084 1.11 1.16 1.19 4.52 6.93
HM 3 0.168 1.20 1.31 1.33 8.09 9.27
HM 4 0.248 1.27 1.38 1.47 7.68 13.33
HM 5 0.161 1.34 1.64 1.51 18.24 11.12
HM 6 0.380 1.41 1.79 1.66 20.96 14.51
HM 7 0.410 1.71 2.12 1.96 19.37 12.69
HM 8 0.560 1.77 2.33 2.23 23.99 20.47
EQM 1 0.078 1.89 2.05 1.99 7.80 5.03
EQM 2 0.146 1.86 1.84 1.97 1.09 5.58
EQM 3 0.253 1.58 1.89 1.81 16.40 12.71
EQM 4 0.359 1.24 1.39 1.32 11.03 6.31

70
 Summary and conclusions
1) With increase in flexibility, i.e., fixed base to dense sand base and loose
sand base, natural period and damping ratio of the system increase.
2) For a 3-storey building on loose sand, the fundamental period and damping
ratio are observed to increase 21% and 330%, respectively, from fixed base
to loose sand base structure.
3) Damping ratio of the structure-foundation systems is observed to be
approximately linearly correlated with the period elongation ratio.
4) During both lateral cyclic tests and shake table tests, significant amount of
foundation deformations, such as transient and permanent settlement,
rocking and sliding are observed.
5) It is also observed that the foundations deformations cause significant
alteration in various structural demands. For example, the increase in storey
displacement due to SSI effect is up to 53% and 88%, for the 3-storey and 6-
storey building, respectively.
6) Significant energy dissipation by mobilizing the moment and shear capacity
of the foundation through rocking is observed for the untied base compared
to the tied base.
71
7) The force demands are found to reduce with increasing base flexibility.
The lateral cyclic tests indicate a force reduction of 56%-60% from fixed
base to tied base case, and 63-71% from fixed base to untied base case for
the 3-storey structure. These reductions are 58%-69% for tied base and
69%-74% for untied base for the 6-storey building.
8) Influence of SSI is found to be moderate at low-intensity input excitations,
and the effect becomes significant during higher amplitude excitations.
This may be due to nonlinearity of soil at higher intensity excitations.
9) The tied base acts effectively to reduce the differential settlement and
rotation of the foundations.
10) The kinematic interaction effects are found to be less significant for the
chosen soil and foundation configurations.
11) The experimental results are compared with the analytical results, and in
general, a reasonable agreement between the two is observed. It can be
concluded that the BNWF model is capable of capturing most of the
features such as natural period, mode shapes, storey drift, base moment,
base shear, rotation, sliding and energy dissipation obtained from the
experiment.
72
 Unique contributions of the study
1) Although some analytical studies explored effect of SSI on period
elongation and damping characteristics of structures, a comprehensive
experimental study with varying relevant parameters such as soil relative
density, embedment depth, structure type and vertical factor of safety is
not available in the literature.
2) Resonant vibration tests on 3D models of SMRFs with different foundation
compliances (i.e., fixed base, tied and untied footings) are practically
unavailable in the literature.
3) No prior literature reported dynamic response analysis of Ganga sand using
free field shake table experiments. The present study carries out a
comprehensive dynamic response analysis of Ganga sand using shake table
tests coupled with equivalent-linear SHAKE analysis and nonlinear
OpenSees analysis.
4) The laminar soil box designed in this study for the low base-shear capacity
shake table is innovative. This facility can be utilized for further for other
seismic SSI studies in future.

73
 Scope for future research
• A dry Ganga sand bed is used in the study. However, for most of the Indo-
Gangetic regions, saturated sand beds are vulnerable to liquefaction-induced
deformations and strength loss during earthquakes. Hence, a further study
on SSI response of structures on saturated soil deposits should be taken up
in future.
• The effect of SSI on steel-moment-resisting frames are considered in this
study. However, majority of low-rise Indian houses are masonry structures,
whereas the high-rise buildings are concrete frame structures. Therefore, a
thorough study on SSI effects on different types of buildings can give a more
generalized picture on this issue.
• Effect of rocking shallow foundations on asymmetric buildings or buildings
with prior eccentricity can be studied further.
• It would be interesting to assess the post-earthquake behavior of partially
tilted buildings due to excessive rocking or differential settlement.
• The study can be extended to consider other types of soil, such as clay, silt
and layered soil etc.
74
 Acknowledgement

• The research is partially funded by the Department of

Science and Technology (DST), which is greatly appreciated.

• The facility, infrastructure and technical support provided by

the Structural Engineering Laboratory and Geotechnical
Engineering Laboratory of IIT Kanpur are highly appreciated.

• I would like to thank all examiners for providing thorough

and constructive comments on my thesis

75
 Publications
Journal
1) Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2017). “Influence of SSI on Period and Damping of Buildings Supported by Shallow Footings on
Cohesionless Soil”, International Journal of Geomechanics (ASCE), DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000890.
2) Vivek, B., Sharma, S., Ray-Chaudhuri, S. and Raychowdhury, P. (2017). “A Study on Failure Mechanism of Self-supported Electric
Poles through Full-scale Field Testing”, Engineering Failure Analysis (Elsevier), Vol. 77, pp. 102–117.
3) Anjali, M., Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P., (2015). “Seismic Response Analysis of Ganga Sand Deposit using Shake Table Tests”,
International Journal of Geo-Engineering (Springer), Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 1-13.
4) Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2014). “Probabilistic and Spatial Liquefaction Analysis using CPT Data: A Case Study for Alameda
County Site.”, Natural Hazards (Springer), Vol. 71, pp. 1715-1732.
5) Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2017). “Seismic SSI Study on 3D Frames using Resonant Vibration Tests”, Structures (Elsevier),
(under Review)
6) Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (201X). “Dynamic Response Analysis of Ganga Sand using Shake Table Tests”, International
Journal of Geomechanics (To be submitted).

Conference
1) Vivek B., Prishati Raychowdhury. (2017) “Shake table testing of a low and medium rise buildings with tied foundation base”,
Proceedings of International Conference on Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures (EVACES2017). July
12-14, 2017, California, USA. (Accepted)
2) Raychowdhury, P. and Vivek B. (2017), “Numerical Modeling and Experimental Validation of Seismic Soil-structure Interaction
Behavior of Shallow Foundations”, Conference on Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics CoNMiG-2017, Roorkee, India.
3) Vivek B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2016), “Effect of soil-structure interaction on modal properties of a building”, Proceedings of
Indian Geotechnical Conference, Chennai, India.
4) Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2015). “Experimental modal analysis of a steel frame structure with SFSI effects”, 6th
International conference in earthquake geotechnical engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.
5) Anjali, M., Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2014). “Ground response analysis of ganga sand through shake table experiments”.
Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey.
6) Sharma, S., Vivek, B., Bajpai, K. K., Ray-Chaudhuri, S. and Raychowdhury, P., (2014). ”Failure Mechanism of Self-Supported
Electric Poles: Experimental and Analytical Investigations”. 15th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee, India. 76
 Selected References
Anastasopoulos, I., Kourkoulis, R., Gelagoti, F., and Papadopoulos, E. (2012). “Rocking response of sdof systems on
shallow improved sand:an experimental study.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 40, 15–33.
Gajan, S., Hutchinson, T. C., Kutter, B., Raychowdhury, P., Ugalde, J. A., and Stewart, J. P. (2008). “Numerical models
for the analysis and performance-based design of shallow foundations subjected to seismic loading.” PEER Data
Report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).
Gajan, S., Raychowdhury, P., Hutchinson, T. C., Kutter, B., and Stewart, J. P. (2010). “Application and validation of
practical tools for nonlinear soil-foundation interaction analysis.” Earthquake Spectra, 26(1), 111–129.
Iai, S. (1989). “Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1 g gravitational field.” Soils and
Foundations, JSSMFE, 29(1), 105–118.
Opensees (2010). “Open system for earthquake engineering simulation:opensees..” Report no., Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley.
Raychowdhury, P. (2008). “Non-linear winkler based shallow foundation model for performance assessment of
seismically loaded structures,” PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.
Raychowdhury, P. (2011). “Seismic response of low-rise steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF) buildings incorporating
nonlinear soilstructure interaction (SSI).” Engineering Structures, 33, 958–967.
Shubham, S., Srinivasan, V., and Ghosh, P. (2014). “Effective utilization of dynamic penetrometer in determining the
soil resistance of the reconstituted sand bed.” The 15th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Fukuoka, Japan.
Vivek, B. and Raychowdhury, P. (2016). “Influence of ssi on period and damping of buildings supported by shallow
foundations on cohesionless soil.” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, -(-), –.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice-Hall international series in civil engineering and
engineering mechanics.
Wong, H. L., Trifunac, M. D., and Luco, J. E. (1988). “A comparison of soil-structure interaction calculations with
results of full-scale forced vibration tests.” Soils Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 7(1), 22–31.
77
Thank you

78
Pushover curve Loading protocol

Capacity assessment from the pushover analysis

79
 Continuum finite element approach
• To model the structure-foundation soil system with finite element
mesh

Torabi et al. (2014)

80
 Macro element model

• Considers foundation and surrounding soil as a single macro-

element
• Constitutive model that relates the forces and displacements

Gajan (2005)
81
 Kinematic Interaction

SETTLEMENT Incoherent
Ground ground
motion motionswith
reductions → base
slab averaging
depth
ROCKING

SWAY
FREE FIELD MOTION

82
Similitude relationship for soil bed
 For shallow containers, low isotropic
stress level leads to higher friction and
lower shear modulus.
 Kelly et al. (2006) and Leblanc et al.
(2010) suggested correction by pouring
the sand at low relative density.
 Following work the after Bolton (1986),
the relationship between the peak friction
angle and the mean effective stress is
provided by:

 A prototype effective stress of 110 kPa at

relative density of 55% can be modeled by
the same sand with 36% relative density
to ensure same friction angle for both
prototype and the model.

83