Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic response of low-rise steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF) buildings

incorporating nonlinear soil–structure interaction (SSI)
Prishati Raychowdhury ∗
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, UP 208016, India

article info abstract

Article history: Nonlinear behavior at the soil–foundation interface due to mobilization of the ultimate capacity and the
Received 6 September 2009 associated energy dissipation, particularly in an intense earthquake event, may be utilized to reduce the
Received in revised form force and ductility demands of a structure, provided that the potential consequences such as excessive
22 April 2010
settlement are tackled carefully. This study focuses on modeling this nonlinear soil–structure interaction
Accepted 9 December 2010
Available online 19 January 2011
behavior through a beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation (BNWF) approach. The results are compared
with those from fixed-base and elastic-base models. It is observed that the force and displacement
Keywords:
demands are reduced significantly when the foundation nonlinearity is accounted for. Moreover, the
Soil–structure interaction foundation compliance is also found to have a significant effect on the structural response.
Nonlinear modeling © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Seismic response
Shallow foundations

1. Introduction
It is well recognized that the nonlinear behavior of a soil–
foundation interface due to mobilization of the ultimate capacity
and the consequent energy dissipation during a seismic event
may be utilized to reduce the force and ductility demands of a
structure. However, current design practice does not account for
the nonlinear behavior of soil–foundation interface primarily due
to the absence of reliable nonlinear soil–structure interaction (SSI)
modeling techniques that can predict the permanent and cyclic
deformations of the foundation as well as the effect of foundation
nonlinearity on the response of structural members.
SSI may affect the response of a structure in several ways.
Namely, foundation movement can alter the period of a system
with introducing flexibility; nonlinear behavior and hysteretic
energy dissipation may reduce the force demand to the structure;
and the foundation flexibility may alter the input ground motion.
However, it is not uncommon to date to completely ignore
the effect of SSI while designing a structure, assuming that
incorporation of SSI generally leads to a conservative design. For
buildings with high periods, the effect of foundation movements
may not be very significant. But for relatively stiffer structural
systems, such as medium-height shear walls and braced frames,
the foundation movements can cause significant flexibility in the
system, and may result in an inaccurate estimation of the seismic
demands [1]. Also, the strength and stiffness characteristics of the
∗ Tel.: +91 512 259 6692; fax: +91 512 259 7395.
E-mail addresses: prishati@iitk.ac.in, prishati@gmail.com.
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.017
underlying soil controls the foundation movements and the SSI
effects on the structure significantly. It is also recognized that the
effects of SSI on the structural response is dependent on the dead
and live loads on the foundation. If the existing loads are over
50–67%, the foundations have potential for large displacements,
causing a greater effect on the superstructure response [2].
Performance-based earthquake engineering encourages the in-
corporation of foundation nonlinearity and energy dissipation ca-
pabilities to reduce the structural force demand. According to
ATC 40 [2], ‘‘stiff and strong’’ foundations are not always bet-
ter than ‘‘flexible and weak’’ foundations (Fig. 1). Design and
rehabilitation provisions (e.g., [2–5]) have traditionally focused
on simplified pseudo-static force-based or pushover-type proce-
dures, in which the soil–foundation interface is characterized in
terms of modified stiffness and damping characteristics. How-
ever, the above-mentioned approaches are not able to capture the
complex behavior of nonlinear soil–foundation–structure systems,
such as hysteretic and radiation damping, gap formation in the
soil–foundation interface and estimation of transient and perma-
nent settlement.
]Numerous studies have been conducted in the past to under-
stand the behavior of structures supported on shallow foundations.
Some of the studies have modeled the soil–foundation interface
as a system of closely spaced springs [6–15]. For example, Chopra
and Yim [6] and Yim and Chopra [7] used nonlinear elastic–plastic
Winkler springs to model the behavior of shallow foundations and
observed the reduction in moment demand of the structure when
SSI is incorporated. Nakaki and Hart [8] used elastic, no-tension
Winkler springs with viscous dampers to model the response of
an inelastic shearwall, and found that the ductility demands were
 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967 959

(a) Stiff and strong. (b) Flexible and weak.

Fig. 1. Effect of foundation flexibility on the component response of a structure.

Source: (adapted from [2]).

Fig. 2. (a) Plan of the building and (b) section of the frame considered in the study.
Source: (adapted from [25]).

significantly reduced if uplifting at the base of the foundation was Table 1

accounted for. [9,16] developed a Winkler-based approach utiliz-
ing multi-linear, no-tension backbone curves. [14,15] modeled the
soil–foundation interface using linear and elasto-plastic springs
with lower-bound and upper-bound capacity curves. This study in-
dicates an increase in force and ductility demands of stiff low-rise
buildings when regions of spring backbone curve. However, the
above-mentioned Winkler-based models do not account for the
smooth transition between elastic and plastic region of the spring
backbone curve, variable stiffness distribution along the length of
the footing, formation of gapping between the soil–foundation in-
terface and permanent displacements of the footing.
Some other studies have considered a single macro-element
representing the behavior of the soil–foundation interface [17–19].
A number of experimental studies have also been conducted, and
nonlinearity of the foundation and energy dissipation under sig-
nificant lateral loading have been observed [20–22]. Some of the
recent experimental studies also show the effect of foundation
movements on the ductility demand of different structural com-
ponents [23].
In this article, a beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation
(BNWF) approach [10,11,24] is used to assess the effect of foun-
dation nonlinearity on the seismic response of low-rise steel
moment-resisting frame (SMRF) buildings. In addition, the struc-
tural dependence on the foundation compliance is also investi-
gated in the present study.
2. Details of structure, foundation and soil condition
A four-story steel frame building, adopted from Ray Chaudhuri
and Villaverde [25], is considered for this study (Fig. 2). This build-
ing is representative of a large number of existing SMRF build-
ings in California resting on stiff soil. The buildings were designed
Foundation sizes.
Vertical factor of safety (FSv ) Footing size
External footings Internal footings
3 1.56 2.00
4 1.75 2.30
5 1.90 2.50
6 2.00 2.68
following UBC 1994 [26], zone 4 response spectra and follow-
ing weak-beam strong-column philosophy. It has a floor plan of
21.94 × 21.94 m, three bays in each horizontal direction at inter-
vals of 7.3 m, a uniform mass distribution over their height, and a
non-uniform stiffness distribution.
The columns of the structure are supported by isolated square
footings, resting on dense silty sand of the Los Angeles area (under
site classification D, from NEHRP [3]). The design loads on the two
exterior and two interior footings are found to be 2.8 MN and
5.6 MN, respectively, based on load calculation procedures of a
typical office building. To study the effect of foundation compliance
on the structural response, analyses with different factors of safety
are carried out. To achieve different vertical factors of safety,
different footing sizes are used in this study (Table 1).
3. Numerical modeling
The numerical modeling of the system is carried out with the
finite element method using the software OpenSees [27]. The
structural members are modeled to behave nonlinearly. The beams
are modeled as nonlinear beams with hinges, while the columns
are modeled as nonlinear beam–column elements allowing the
960 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967

Normalized Lateral Load

per Unit Length, V/tult
1

0.5

-0.5
-1
-20 -10 0 10 20
Normalized Lateral
Displacement, u/x50

Normalized Lateral Load

Normalized Vertical Load
uplift settlement

per Unit Length, V/pult

1
per Unit Length, q/qult

tension compression
1
0.5
0.5
0
0 -0.5

-0.5 -1
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
Normalized Vertical Displacement, s/z50 Normalized Lateral
Displacement, u/x50

Fig. 3. Different base conditions considered in the study: (a) fixed base, (b) elastic Winkler-based SSI model, and (c) nonlinear Winkler-based SSI model [10,11].

spread of plasticity along the member length. A kinematic material
hardening of 3% is assumed for the nonlinear elements. A Rayleigh
damping of 2% is assumed for the first two modes of each frame.
In order to evaluate the effect of elastic and nonlinear soil–
structure interaction on the structural response, three different
base conditions are considered at the soil–foundation interface.
The first case is the fixed-base case, in which the foundation is as-
sumed to be fixed against all the movements (Fig. 3(a)). The second
case is an elastic-base case, in which the foundation is assumed
to rest on a array of elastic Winkler springs (Fig. 3(b)). The lat-
eral movement is also represented through an elastic spring. The
stiffnesses of the springs are calculated following the method in
Gazetas [28]. The third case is the nonlinear SSI case, in which the
soil–foundation interface is modeled as nonlinear Winkler springs
(Fig. 3(c)). This model is named the beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-
foundation (BNWF) model [11,24,29]. In this model, an array of
vertical q–z springs is used to capture vertical and rotational re-
sistance of the footing, while two springs, namely p–x and t–x, are
placed horizontally to capture the passive and sliding resistance of
the footing, respectively. The constitutive relations for the q–z, p–x,
and t–x springs are represented by nonlinear backbone curves that
have been constructed from the pile-calibrated backbone curves
developed by Boulanger [30] based on the material model concept
described in Boulanger et al. [31] after calibrating against a set of
shallow foundation tests [24]. The q–z spring, which is intended to
capture the axial and rotational behavior of shallow foundations,
has an asymmetric hysteretic response with a backbone curve de-
fined by an ultimate load on the compression side and a reduced
strength in tension to account for soil’s weak strength in tension.
The equations used to describe the q–z spring backbone
(QzSimple2 material model) are similar to those used for the
PySimple1 materials described in Boulanger et al. [31]. In the
elastic portion, the instantaneous load q is assumed to be linearly
proportional with the instantaneous displacement z:
q = kin z ,
where kin is the initial elastic (tangent) stiffness. The range of the
elastic region is defined by the following relation:
qo = Cr qult , (2)
where qo is the load at the yield point, Cr is a parameter controlling
the range of the elastic portion, and qult is the ultimate load. In the
nonlinear (post-yield) portion, the backbone curve is described by
 n
cz50
q = qult − (qult − qo )  p
 , (3)
cz50 + z p − zo 
where z50 is the displacement at which 50% of the ultimate load is
p
mobilized, zo is the displacement at the yield point, z p is the dis-
placement at any point in the post-yield region, and c and n are the
constitutive parameters controlling the shape of the post-yield
portion of the backbone curve. The expressions governing both
PxSimple1 and TxSimple1 are similar to Eqs. (1)–(3), with varia-
tions in the constants n, c, and Cr , which control the general shape
of the curve. Moreover, the PxSimple1 material is characterized
by a pinched hysteretic behavior to suitably account for the phe-
nomenon of gapping during unloading on the opposite side of the
footing, whereas the TxSimple1 material is characterized by a large
initial stiffness and a broad hysteresis as shown in Fig. 3(c). For fur-
ther details of the material models, such as suction, unloading, and
radiation damping characteristics, one can consult [24,29–32].
The BNWF model has shown good predictive capability in cap-
turing the experimentally observed behavior of shallow founda-
tions in terms of capturing the peak moment, shear, settlement,
and rocking, and the shape of the hysteretic loops (Fig. 4). More
validation results for this model can be found in [11,24].
4. Selection of ground motions
A total of 60 ground motions representing hazard levels of
(1) 50% in 50 years, 10% in 50 years, and 2% in 50 years are used
 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967
Fig. 4. Predictive capability of the BNWF model (additional validation results are given in [11,24]).
Fig. 5. (a) Mean acceleration response spectra and (b) mean displacement
response spectra for 2% damped elastic systems (with building fundamental periods
overlaid).
in this study. Each hazard level is represented by an ensem-
ble of 20 ground motions. These motions were developed under
the FEMA/SAC project [33] for stiff soil sites and scenario earth-
quakes in the Los Angeles area. These ground motions have a
wide range of peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground ve-
locity (PGV), and peak ground displacement (PGD), along with
variations in other inherent characteristics such as distance from
the rupture zone, strong motion duration, and frequency con-
tent. Table 2 provides a list of the ground motions, earthquake
names, distance from the fault, PGA, PGV, and PGD. More de-
tails of these motions can be found at the FEMA/SAC project site
(http://www.sacsteel.org/project/).
961
Fig. 5(a) and (b) show the mean response spectra for the
three hazard levels. Fig. 5(a) shows the spectral acceleration and
Fig. 5(b) shows the spectral displacement for 2% damped elastic
systems. Note that only a part of the spectra (for period range
0.5–1 s) has been shown for clarity. The fundamental periods of
the structure (fixed-base and flexible-base conditions) are shown
in these figures too.
5. Results and discussion
In order to understand the behavior of the nonlinear structure
incorporating the nonlinear SSI, an eigenvalue analysis and a
nonlinear static pushover analysis are performed, followed by a
dynamic time history analysis. The results of the analyses are
discussed in this section.
It is important to characterize the eigenproperties of a system
to estimate its seismic demand. In the current design practice,
the period ratio (flexible-base period to fixed-base period) is
used to determine whether or not the SSI will have an effect
on the seismic response. In this study, an eigenvalue analysis is
performed to determine the fixed-base and flexible-base periods
for different static vertical factors of safety (Table 3). In addition
to the fundamental periods, two higher-mode periods are also
provided in Table 3. It is observed that the effect of SSI is significant
on the fundamental mode; however, it becomes insignificant
for the higher modes. Note that the system with elastic-base
and nonlinear-base conditions show the same natural periods,
indicating that the foundation does not yield under the self-weight.
It is also observed that the foundation compliance has little effect
on the fundamental period of the system, and can thus be neglected
for evaluating the eigenvalue properties of the system.
Following the eigenvalue analysis, a nonlinear static pushover
analysis is carried out to assess the capacity of the system. Non-
linear static pushover analysis is widely used in the current design
practice to assess the force, displacement, and ductility demands
of buildings, bridges, piles, and many other components of infras-
tructures. In this study, lateral loads as per the first eigenvectors
are applied to the structure, followed by a displacement-controlled
pushover analysis, to determine the yield drift and yield force of
the system with different base conditions. It can be seen that the
fixed-base and the elastic-base cases show a similar trend of strain-
hardening behavior (Fig. 6). On the other hand, the nonlinear-base
condition shows softer behavior, indicating that the springs at the
foundation–soil interface are yielding, and, as a result, they mod-
ify the global stiffness of the system. It can also be noted that the
higher vertical factor of safety case (FSv = 6) shows similar re-
sults as the elastic-base case, whereas the lower vertical factor of
962 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967

Table 2
Ground motions considered in the present study (adopted from Somerville et al. [33]).
Hazard level SAC Record Earthquake Distance Duration PGA PGV PGD (cm)
name magnitude (km) (s) (cm/s2 ) (cm/s)

LA41 Coyote Lake, 1979 5.7 8.8 39.38 578.34 69.51 11.06
LA42 Coyote Lake, 1979 5.7 8.8 39.38 326.81 26.72 6.68
LA43 Imperial Valley, 1979 6.5 1.2 39.08 140.67 42.43 22.97
LA44 Imperial Valley, 1979 6.5 1.2 39.08 109.45 22.57 14.27
LA45 Kern, 1952 7.7 107 78.6 141.49 24.74 14.15
LA46 Kern, 1952 7.7 107 78.6 156.02 24.24 14.98
LA47 Landers, 1992 7.3 64 79.98 331.22 40.85 33.44
LA48 Landers, 1992 7.3 64 79.98 301.74 25.02 12.58
LA49 Morgan Hill, 1984 6.2 15 59.98 312.41 26.94 6.87
50% in 50 LA50 Morgan Hill, 1984 6.2 15 59.98 535.88 22.81 5.74
years LA51 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 5W 6.1 3.7 43.92 765.65 42.58 6.53
LA52 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 5W 6.1 3.7 43.92 619.36 36.87 5.36
LA53 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 8W 6.1 8 26.14 680.01 31.21 6.34
LA54 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 8W 6.1 8 26.14 775.05 32.08 9.07
LA55 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 9.6 59.98 507.58 36.72 7.19
LA56 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 9.6 59.98 371.66 25.42 5.85
LA57 San Fernando, 1971 6.5 1 79.46 248.14 21.67 12.84
LA58 San Fernando, 1971 6.5 1 79.46 226.54 27.05 17.73
LA59 Whittier, 1987 6 17 39.98 753.7 98.54 12.66
LA60 Whittier, 1987 6 17 39.98 469.07 60.02 7.89
LA01 Imperial Valley, 1940, El Centro 6.9 10 39.38 452.03 62.39 27.68
LA02 Imperial Valley, 1940, El Centro 6.9 10 39.38 662.88 59.89 14.29
LA03 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array 6.5 4.1 39.38 386.04 83.00 33.42
#05
LA04 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array 6.5 4.1 39.38 478.65 77.11 48.20
#05
LA05 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array 6.5 1.2 39.08 295.69 89.20 48.29
#06
LA06 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array 6.5 1.2 39.08 230.08 47.44 30.00
10% in 50 #06
years LA07 Landers, 1992, Barstow 7.3 36 79.98 412.98 66.07 33.25
LA08 Landers, 1992, Barstow 7.3 36 79.98 417.49 65.68 39.50
LA09 Landers, 1992, Yermo 7.3 25 79.98 509.7 91.32 56.25
LA10 Landers, 1992, Yermo 7.3 25 79.98 353.35 60.36 46.45
LA11 Loma Prieta, 1989, Gilroy 7 12 39.98 652.49 79.09 28.16
LA12 Loma Prieta, 1989, Gilroy 7 12 39.98 950.93 56.04 16.50
LA13 Northridge, 1994, Newhall 6.7 6.7 59.98 664.93 95.55 19.82
LA14 Northridge, 1994, Newhall 6.7 6.7 59.98 644.49 80.96 35.58
LA15 Northridge, 1994, Rinaldi RS 6.7 7.5 14.945 523.3 98.57 18.01
LA16 Northridge, 1994, Rinaldi RS 6.7 7.5 14.945 568.58 100.60 26.38
LA17 Northridge, 1994, Sylmar 6.7 6.4 59.98 558.43 80.17 17.37
LA18 Northridge, 1994, Sylmar 6.7 6.4 59.98 801.44 118.93 26.87
LA19 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 6.7 59.98 999.43 68.27 15.64
LA20 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 6.7 59.98 967.61 103.83 25.57
LA21 1995 Kobe 6.9 3.4 59.98 1258 142.70 37.81
LA22 1995 Kobe 6.9 3.4 59.98 902.75 123.16 34.22
LA23 1989 Loma Prieta 7 3.5 24.99 409.95 73.75 23.07
LA24 1989 Loma Prieta 7 3.5 24.99 463.76 136.88 58.85
LA25 1994 Northridge 6.7 7.5 14.945 851.62 160.42 29.31
LA26 1994 Northridge 6.7 7.5 14.945 925.29 163.72 42.93
LA27 1994 Northridge 6.7 6.4 59.98 908.7 130.46 28.27
LA28 1994 Northridge 6.7 6.4 59.98 1304.1 193.52 43.72
LA29 1974 Tabas 7.4 1.2 49.98 793.45 71.20 34.58
LA30 1974 Tabas 7.4 1.2 49.98 972.58 138.68 93.43
2% in 50 years
LA31 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 17.5 29.99 1271.2 119.97 36.17
LA32 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 17.5 29.99 1163.5 141.12 45.80
LA33 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 10.7 29.99 767.26 111.03 50.61
LA34 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 10.7 29.99 667.59 108.44 50.12
LA35 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 11.2 29.99 973.16 222.78 89.88
LA36 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 11.2 29.99 1079.3 245.41 82.94
LA37 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 1.5 59.98 697.84 177.47 77.38
LA38 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 1.5 59.98 761.31 194.07 92.56
LA39 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 1.5 59.98 490.58 85.50 22.64
LA40 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 1.5 59.98 613.28 169.30 67.84

safety case (FSv = 3) shows a significant deviation from the elas-
tic SSI case. This indicates that the foundation nonlinearity affects
the global response of the structure more significantly for heavily
loaded foundations, compared to lightly loaded foundations. Note
also that the linear, elastic SSI model will not be able to capture
this important contribution of foundation compliance to the over-
all structural response.
This aspect is clearly shown in Table 4, where the yield forces
and drift ratios for different base conditions and vertical factors of
safety are summarized. The decrease in yield force and drift de-
mand with decreasing FSv indicates that the structure–foundation
system is getting softer due to the capacity mobilization of a larger
number of springs. Note that different FSv cases for the elastic
base are not shown, as FSv does not affect the elastic response
 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967 963

Table 3
Fixed-base and flexible-base periods with different FSv .
Mode Fixed base Flexible base
T FSv = 3 FSv = 4 FSv = 5 FSv = 6
T̃ T̃ /T T̃ T̃ /T T̃ T̃ /T T̃ T̃ /T

1 0.73 0.84 1.15 0.82 1.12 0.81 1.11 0.80 1.10

2 0.23 0.24 1.06 0.24 1.05 0.24 1.04 0.24 1.03
3 0.12 0.12 1.03 0.12 1.03 0.12 1.03 0.12 1.02

ing the transient analysis with solution parameters of 0.25 and 0.5
(linear acceleration method). 2% Rayleigh damping has been as-
sumed for the first two modes. Also, to solve the nonlinear equilib-
rium equations, the modified Newton–Raphson algorithm is used
with a maximum of 40 iterations and a convergence tolerance of
1e-8, which is found to be suitable for this application.
The results of the dynamic time history analyses are presented
in Figs. 7 through 13. Fig. 7(a) shows the global shear–drift behavior
for three different base conditions: fixed, elastic SSI, and nonlinear
SSI for ground motion LA25. It is clearly observed that the nonlinear
SSI introduces additional flexibility to the system. Fig. 7(b) shows
the rocking response, i.e., the moment–rotation behavior at the
base of the structure. The fatter loops of the moment–rotation
curves of the nonlinear base indicate significant energy dissipation
through the foundation rocking movement. This figure shows
results for FSv = 3 for both elastic-base and nonlinear-base
Fig. 6. Pushover analysis. conditions. In order to study the responses for other FSv ranges
and different ground motions, a total of 720 time history analyses
Table 4 are performed (four FSv cases, 60 ground motions, and three types
Yield force and yield drift ratio (total) from nonlinear pushover analysis. of base condition). For the purpose of systematically studying
Base condition FSv Yield force (MN) Yield drift (%) the response of the wide range of ground motions mentioned
Fixed base 3, 4, 5, 6 2.30 0.90
earlier, the average responses for each hazard level are evaluated
Elastic SSI 3, 4, 5, 6 2.30 1.30 and presented. The seismic response of the structure in terms of
Nonlinear SSI 3 0.75 0.45 the base moment, base shear, story drift, and ductility demands
4 1.20 0.65 are selected as response parameters of interest, as these are
5 1.40 0.75 generally considered the most important response parameters to
6 2.20 1.10
evaluate the seismic vulnerability of a structure in seismic design
practice. The following subsections discuss the effects of different
significantly (as is evident from Fig. 6). It is thus important to know SSI considerations and foundation compliances on each of these
the yield force and displacements of a structure with and without response parameters.
the incorporation of nonlinear SSI, in order to decide whether or
not dynamic time history analyses need to be carried out. 5.1. Base moment
Following the pushover analysis, nonlinear dynamic time his-
tory analyses are carried out using the ground motions discussed Fig. 8(a) through (c) summarize the effect of SSI (elastic and
in Section 4 (and Table 2). Newmark’s method is used for conduct- nonlinear) on the peak base moment demand for ground motions

Fig. 7. Global force–displacement behavior: (a) shear–drift and (b) moment–rotation for ground motion LA25.
964 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967
Fig. 8. Peak absolute base moment for ground motions: (a) 50% in 50 years, (b) 10%
in 50 years, and (c) 2% in 50 years.
of hazard levels 50% in 50 years, 10% in 50 years, and 2% in 50 years,
respectively. Note that only mean values for each hazard level
motions are presented herein. The peak absolute base moment is
plotted against the vertical static factor of safety of the foundation.
It can be observed that (i) the moment demand reduces by up
to 20% when flexibility (elastic) is introduced at the base, (ii)
it reduces even more (up to about 50%) when base flexibility
along with foundation nonlinearity is considered, (iii) the response
is significantly affected by the foundation compliance in the
case of nonlinear modeling of the soil–foundation interface, and
(iv) with increasing ground motion intensity, the effect of
foundation nonlinearity increases. The above results indicate that
if the foundation is allowed to rock and dissipate energy through
the mobilization of its capacity, the moment demand at the base
of the columns may reduce significantly, particularly for heavily
loaded foundations subjected to high-intensity ground motions.
Fig. 9. Peak absolute base shear for ground motions: (a) 50% in 50 years, (b) 10% in
50 years, and (c) 2% in 50 years.
5.2. Base shear
Fig. 9(a) through (c) present the structural response in terms
of the peak base shear demand for ground motions 50% in 50
years, 10% in 50 years, and 2% in 50 years, respectively. It can be
observed that the elastic-base demand is greater than the fixed-
base demand for all the motions, which is in accord to the spectral
demands shown in Fig. 5(a). However, the significant reduction
of the shear demand in the case of nonlinear SSI (as is evident
from Fig. 9) may not be understood from period elongation and the
subsequent change in the spectral demand observed in Fig. 5(a).
Since nonlinear SSI is a more realistic assumption under higher
loading intensities such as 10% in 50 years and 2% in 50 years
ground motions, it is indicated that modeling the soil–foundation
interface as fixed or elastic would lead to an over-conservative
estimation of the base moment and base shear. The effect of
foundation compliance is also evident here, indicating that heavily
 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967 965

Fig. 10. (a) Peak story displacement and (b) interstory drift ratio.

loaded foundations have the potential for greater reduction in

structural force demands due to the capacity mobilization of
a larger number of mechanistic springs at the soil–foundation
interface.

5.3. Story drift

Fig. 10(a) and (b) show the effect of foundation flexibility and
nonlinearity on the story drift of the building for the highest and
lowest intensity motions (50% in 50 years and 2% in 50 years).
Fig. 10(a) shows the peak absolute displacement at the floor level
in the direction of applied acceleration. It is observed that the
story displacement increases as the base condition changes from
fixed to flexible. The increase is largest for the nonlinear SSI
case. The increase in story displacement is occurring due to the
overall reduction in the global stiffness resulting from the induced
foundation movements. This trend of increase in displacement
demand may be expected, looking at the displacement response
spectra (Fig. 5(b)). It may also be noted from Fig. 10(a) that the
structure is vibrating in its fundamental mode, which indicates that
the higher modes are not contributing significantly for the chosen
building and ground motions. Fig. 11. Ductility demand for ground motions: (a) 50% in 50 years, (b) 10% in 50
Although the absolute displacements at story levels are greater years, and (c) 2% in 50 years.
in the case of flexible-base conditions (both elastic and nonlinear),
the relative displacements show a decreasing trend when base
nonlinearity is introduced, as indicated in Fig. 10(b). It is observed
that the relative story drift, which is generally known as the
interstory drift ratio, increases when the base condition is changed
from fixed to elastic SSI, but reduces significantly (about 30%) when
nonlinear SSI is incorporated. Since the interstory drift demand is
an important parameter for the design of structural members, it is
very likely that the members are designed over-conservatively in
the absence of incorporation of nonlinear SSI.

5.4. Ductility demand

Ductility demand is also an important parameter considered
for characterizing the post-yield behavior of structural members
in the framework of performance-based earthquake engineering.
In this study, ductility demands for different base conditions are
Fig. 12. Settlement time history from BNWF analysis (ground motion LA44).
compared, while defining the ductility demand as the ratio of
peak absolute drift demand (total) to the yield drift obtained
966 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967
Fig. 13. Potential consequences (FSv = 3 case): (a) peak settlement, (b) peak differential settlement.
from the static pushover analysis. Fig. 11(a) through (c) show
the ductility demands for different base conditions and different
FSv , for 50% in 50 years, 10% in 50 years, and 2% in 50 years
ground motions, respectively. A line is also drawn to show
a ductility of unity, i.e., when the peak drift demand equals
the yield drift, in order to distinguish between two regions:
pre-yield (elastic) and post-yield. The following features are
observed from these results: (i) The ductility demand reduces
when foundation flexibility, modeled elastically, is introduced to
the fixed-base system. It decreases even more when nonlinearity
is introduced at the soil–foundation interface. (ii) The ductility
demand is lower for lower intensity motions, but increases for
higher intensity motions, which is expected. (iii) For ground
motion 50% in 50 years, none of the cases show yielding of
the structure, while for 10% in 50 years ground motion only
the fixed-base case has shown yielding, whereas the highest-
intensity motion (2% in 50 years) shows yielding for both the
fixed-base and elastic-base cases. It is important to note that
the nonlinear SSI case shows the ductility demand to be well
below unity for even the highest motion. This indicates that in
the absence of consideration of nonlinear SSI, significant over-
prediction in the ductility demand may result, considering the
fact that the soil–foundation interface behavior will most likely
be nonlinear for higher-intensity motions, particularly for heavily
loaded foundations, i.e., with lower FSv cases. (iv) The static vertical
factor of safety does not have a significant effect on the ductility
demand, unlike other demand parameters discussed earlier.
5.5. Consequence of nonlinear SSI: settlement issue
The above-mentioned beneficial effects of foundation nonlin-
earity may be associated with potential adverse consequences such
as excessive permanent and transient displacements at the founda-
tion level. For a rocking-dominated heavily loaded building, settle-
ment is a prime concern for repeated significant cyclic loading. The
current design provision does not, however, provide any guideline
to estimate this settlement resulting from the rocking of a build-
ing foundation system under earthquake loading. It is, however,
very important to properly estimate the potential permanent and
cyclic settlement, as this may not only cause structural instability,
but may also pose concern for various non-structural components
including pipes and utility lines. The BNWF model is able to esti-
mate the permanent as well as transient settlements of a build-
ing–foundation system with reasonable accuracy (as shown from
various comparisons studied with experiments [11,24]). Fig. 12
shows the settlement time histories for the ground motion LA44
using the nonlinear BNWF model, for FSv = 3 and 6 cases and
for interior and exterior footings. It is observed that the perma-
nent settlement is generally followed by a few cycles of transient
movement. It is also observed that the building with lower FSv set-
tles more than that with higher FSv , which may be due to the fact
that the building with lower FSv is heavily loaded compared to the
building with higher FSv . The same reasoning may be applicable to
explain the higher settlement of the interior footings compared to
the exterior footings.
Peak settlements of all the motions are computed, and they are
summarized in Fig. 13(a) and (b). Note that only settlements cor-
responding to the nonlinear case, FSv = 3, are shown here, as this
case has been shown to produce higher foundation deformations
than greater FSv cases due to the yielding of a larger number of
springs. Fig. 13(a) and (b) show that peak settlement versus the
peak ground acceleration. It is observed that peak ground accel-
eration is well below the allowable limit provided in design code
FEMA [4]. On the other hand, the differential settlement crosses
the allowable limit, indicating that, for this building, soil type, and
suite of ground motions, differential settlement may be a cause of
concern. Thus proper care and design measures should be taken
to address this issue. The use of grade beams joining the isolated
footings, or the use of mat foundation instead of isolated footings
may resolve issues related to the differential settlement, while still
keeping the foundations useful for capacity mobilization and con-
sequent force and ductility reduction in the structures. However,
the above-mentioned design recommendations certainly need fur-
ther investigation. Moreover, note that in the absence of a proper
tool for estimating the permanent settlement, this differential set-
tlement may have been underestimated and ignored.
6. Conclusions
Nonlinear foundation movements and associated energy dissi-
pation may be utilized to reduce the force and ductility demands of
a structure, particularly in a high-intensity earthquake event, if the
potential consequences such as excessive settlement are taken care
of. However, these aspects of SSI are not considered in the current
design practice, mostly due to the absence of reliable nonlinear SSI
modeling techniques. The present study focuses on the effect of
foundation nonlinearity on the structural response in terms of base
moment, base shear, story drift, and ductility demand. A nonlin-
ear Winkler-based model (BNWF) is adopted for this purpose. The
results are compared with those from fixed-base and elastic-base
models. The following specific observations are obtained from the
analyses.
• The peak moment and the peak shear at the base of the columns
reduce as much as 60% and 30%, respectively, when nonlinearity
at the soil–foundation interface is considered.
 P. Raychowdhury / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 958–967
• The reduction in the force demand is more prominent for the
lowest FSv case (i.e. FSv = 3), due to the yielding of a larger
number of mechanistic springs, indicating that the SSI issue
should be tackled more critically for heavily loaded foundations.
• The ductility demand is observed to reduce when nonlinearity
at the soil–foundation interface is incorporated.
• The story displacement demand is observed to increase when
foundation nonlinearity is considered. However, the interstory
drift demand is observed to decrease with base nonlinearity,
indicating another beneficial effect of the capacity mobilization
of the foundation.
• The peak settlement is within the permissible limit (as per
FEMA [4]); however, the differential settlement between two
footings exceeds the permissible limit, indicating that proper
design measures (e.g., grade beams connecting the isolated
footings or using mat foundations instead of isolated footings)
should be taken to eliminate this problem.
It may be noted that, for the chosen structure and soil type, the
period elongation is not significantly large to consider the effect
of soil–structure interaction (as per NEHRP, 2003 [3]). However,
modeling the soil–foundation interface using this nonlinear, well-
calibrated and experimentally validated model shows that the
soil–structure interaction effect may play an important role
in altering the force and displacement demand, indicating the
necessity for consideration of inelastic foundation behavior in the
modern design codes to accomplish a more economic yet safe
structural design. It may also be noted that the modeling approach
adopted herein is not validated for foundations on liquefiable
soil, stratified soil, highly inhomogeneous soil, rock, and sloping
ground; thus this methodology and the findings may be not
be valid for the above-mentioned soil conditions. Moreover, the
kinematic interaction effect is ignored in the modeling, assuming
that the foundation is rigid compared to the soil. Furthermore, the
study should be extended to consider additional structures with a
wide range of natural periods and different soil conditions before
the findings of this study could be generalized and used for design
recommendations.
References
[1] Stewart JP, Fenves GL, Seed RB. Seismic soil–structure interaction in buildings.
I: analytical methods. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;125:26–37.
[2] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Redwood City
(CA): Applied Technology Council (ATC); 1996.
[3] NEHRP. Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings.
Building seismic safety council. Washington (DC); 2003.
[4] FEMA. Recommended seismic evaluation and upgrade criteria for existing
welded steel moment-frame buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Agency. 2003.
[5] ASCE. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Reston (VA):
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) and American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE); 2005.
[6] Chopra A, Yim SC. Simplified earthquake analysis of structures with foundation
uplift. ASCE J Struct Eng 1985;111:906–30.
[7] Yim SC, Chopra A. Simplified earthquake analysis of multistory structures with
foundation uplift. ASCE J Struct Eng 1985;111:2708–31.
[8] Nakaki DK, Hart GC. Uplifiting response of structures subjected to earthquake
motions. US–Japan coordinated program for masonry building research.
Report no. 2.1-3. Ewing, Kariotis, Englekirk and Hart. 1987.
967
[9] Allotey N, Naggar MHE. An investigation into the Winkler modeling of the
cyclic response of rigid footings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2007;28:44–57.
[10] Harden CW, Hutchinson TC. Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation model-
ing of shallow, rocking-dominated footings. Earthq Spectra 2009;25.
[11] Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC. Performance evaluation of a nonlinear
Winkler-based shallow foundation model using centrifuge test results. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38:679–98.
[12] Raychowdhury P. Effect of soil parameter uncertainty on seismic demand of
low-rise steel buildings on dense silty sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29:
1367–78.
[13] Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC. Sensitivity of shallow foundation response
to model input parameters. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136:538–41.
[14] Dutta SC, Bhattacharya K, Roy R. Response of low-rise buildings under seismic
ground excitation incorporating soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2004;24:893–914.
[15] Roy R, Dutta SC. Inelastic seismic demand of low-rise buildings with soil-
flexibility. Internat J Non-Linear Mech 2010;45:419–32.
[16] Allotey N, Naggar MHE. Analytical moment–rotation curves for rigid
foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2003;23.
[17] Cremer C, Pecker A, Davenne L. Cyclic macro-element for soil–structure
interaction: material and geometrical nonlinearities. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 2001;25:1257–84.
[18] Gajan S. Physical and numerical modeling of nonlinear cyclic load–
deformation behavior of shallow foundations supporting rocking shear walls.
Ph.D. dissertation. Davis: University of California; 2006.
[19] Gajan S, Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL, Stewart JP. Application
and validation of practical tools for nonlinear soil–foundation interaction
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2010;26:111–29.
[20] Taylor PW, Bartlett PE, Weissing PR. Foundation rocking under earthquake
loading. In: Proceedings, 10th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering. vol. 3. 1981. p. 313–22.
[21] Gajan S, Thomas JM, Kutter BL. Soil–foundation–structure interaction: shallow
foundations. Center for geotechnical modeling. UCD/CGMDR-05/02. Davis
(CA): University of California; 2006.
[22] Ugalde JA, Kutter BL, Jeremic B, Gajan S. Centrifuge modeling of rocking be-
havior of structures on shallow foundations. In: Proceedings, 4th international
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. 2007 [unpaginated].
[23] Chang B, Thomas JM, Raychowdhury P, Gajan S, Kutter BL, Hutchinson TC.
Soil–foundation–structure interaction: shallow foundations. Centrifuge data
report for the JMT02 test series. Center for geotechnical modeling. UCD/SSRP-
07/24. Davis: University of California; 2007.
[24] Raychowdhury P. Nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model for
performance assessment of seismically loaded structures. Ph.D. dissertation.
San Diego: University of California; 2008.
[25] Ray Chaudhuri S, Villaverde R. Effect of building nonlinearity on seismic
response of nonstructural components: a parametric study. ASCE J Struct Eng
2008;134:661–70.
[26] Uniform Building Code. Structural engineering design provisions. Vol. 2.
International conference of building officials. Whittier (CA); 1994.
[27] OpenSees—Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific
earthquake engineering research center. PEER. Richmond (CA, USA). http://
opensees.berkeley.edu/.
[28] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded
foundations. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1991;117:1363–81.
[29] Harden CW, Hutchinson T, Martin GR, Kutter BL. Numerical modeling of
the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations. Pacific earthquake
engineering research center. PEER. 2005/04. 2005.
[30] Boulanger RW. The PySimple1, TzSimple1, and QzSimple1 material models.
2000. Documentation for the OpenSees platform. http://opensees.berkeley.
edu.
[31] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic
soil–pile–structure interaction experiments and analyses. ASCE J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 1999;125:750–9.
[32] Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson T. Nonlinear material models for Winkler-
based shallow foundation response evaluation, in: Geocongress 2008.
Characterization, monitoring, and modeling of geosystems. March 9–12,
2008. New Orleans, LA. ASCE geotechnical special publication no. 179. 2008.
p. 686–93.
[33] Somerville P, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of ground
motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. 1997.
http://www.sacsteel.org/project/.