Effect of Soil Deformability on Rigidity-Related Aspects of Multistory Buildings Analysis

The assumption of perfect supports, and mainly fixed ends, is accepted and used by most
designers. The author is not aware of any comprehensive study meant to confirm or deny the
practical validity of this basic assumption which involves the presence of a rigid soil, in the design
of multistory buildings subject to lateral forces: the rigidity of structural walls and frames; the
magnitude and distribution of seismic forces: the magnitude of torsional forces: the stresses
due to temperature changes.

The results show that the fixed supports analyses lead to important distortions of the rigidities
and stresses. We have either to perform analyses by taking into account the soil deformability,
or to perform fixed supports analyses in which we have to decrease the rigidities of the
structural walls by multiplying them by coefficients to be determined for each type of structure.

Keywords: earthquake-resistant structures; frames: foundations; lateral pressures: loads

(forces); rigidity; soil deformability; structural design.

In many cases, the analysis of high-rise buildings is based on the assumption of perfect
supports (rigid soil), either fixed or pinned. It is an important simplifying assumption and, up to
the advent of the computerized analysis, an unavoidable one. Taking into account the soil
deformability, especially by an interaction soil/structure analysis. Involves a tremendous
volume of computation, practically prohibitive without computers. Consequently, the design
engineer had to accept this assumption with mixed feelings of resignation and mystical belief.

Several solutions have been proposed to consider the effect of the soil deformability when
computing particular types of structures (see e.g. Khan and Sbarounis 1964: Rosman 1966), but
the procedures by these authors have not become common practice.

In the following we shall distinguish between fixed supports analyses, based on the
assumption of rigid soils (fixed supports) and elastic supports analyses, which take into
account the soil deformability.

At present, elastic supports analyses are performed in elite design offices, and these too
only for special structures.

The author is not aware of any comprehensive study performed so far to suggest the limits of
validity of the fixed supports analyses and to assess the order of magnitude of their inherent
errors. Most design engineers are convinced that these errors are acceptable. Such a study may
fill an important technical gap and shake a persistent prejudice that may lead to significant errors
in estimating the rigidity of structural walls and frames, the magnitude and distribution of
seismic forces, the magnitude of torsional forces, and the stresses due to temperature changes.

METHODS TO QUANTIFY SOIL DEFORMABILITY

From a theoretical standpoint, the most accurate method to consider the effect of soil
deformability is the so called interaction analysis, in which the structure and the surroundings
soil are dealt with as a unique system (Fig.1). We consider the soil (Sizes L, B, and H) up to limits
where the stresses are negligible; the supports along these limits have no practical effect on the
results. Obviously, such an analysis to be performed by tridimensional (solid) finite elements
only.

This method has several drawbacks:

1. - The computation involves a very high number of unknowns and, as such, needs special
computer capability.

2. - The validity of the usual assumption of elastic/uncracked soil elements is rather

questionable. We may partly correct this assumption by a nonlinear analysis which also includes
gaps, but additional computational complications are involved.

3. The soil is very nonhomogeneous; and we cannot overcome this intricacy by

computational means.

4. The recommended moduli of elasticity of soils are very questionable and strongly affect
the results.

5. No experimental confirmation of interaction analyses is available, especially of the frail

assumptions admitted in a nonlinear analysis. Such an analysis performed by the author has
shown that the corresponding rigidity of the soil may decrease by 50 percent with respect to the
rigidity resulting from an elastic analysis and that the results are very sensitive to modifications
of the soil characteristics. Consequently, it is advisable to consider conservatively an elastic soil
and to choose high values foe the moduli of elasticity.

A simpler method to quantify the effect of soil deformation albeit less accurate from a
theoretical standpoint, is ---- on substituting a set of discrete elastic springs for the continuous,
deformable soil (Fig. 2).

The spring constants are proportional to the subgrade modulus of the soil ks (kN/m3) and the
tributary area Ai (m2).

= (I)
This procedure is based on Winklers assumption and as such it neglects the interaction of
adjacent springs. The errors increase in the case of weak soils.

If we assume that the foundation base remains rigid after the soils elastic deformation, we
also implicitly admit a linear variation of stresses. Consequently we can replace the set of elastic
spring by three global springs in the center of the foundation (Fig.3) with constants.

Usually we assume = = , although several tests --------- different values (Barkan 1962.
SNiP 2.02.03-85).

The magnitude of the subgrade moduli vary with the sizes and the form of the foundation
(Bowles 1982).
 It is worth noting that the method based on the assumption of linear elastic stresses, which is
the least accurate from a theoretical point of view, is the only one based on tests and therefore
the most reliable.

In the following we have used sets of discrete springs for large foundations, and global central
springs for small foundations. The results have been partly checked by interaction analyses using
elastic finite elements.

We have considered two types of soil: weak soils with subgrade modulus =

20,000/3 (72 3 ) and strong soils, with subgrade modulus 100,000/3 (362 3 )

Several relationships have been proposed between subgrade moduli ks and moduli of elasticity
Es (Scott 1981). Calibration computations have shown that, by considering elastic soil elements,
subgrade moduli of 20,000 to 30,000 kN/m3 (72 to 109 lb/in3) correspond to moduli of elasticity
of 40,000 to 60,000 kN/m2 (5690 to 8535 psi), while subgrade moduli of 80,000 to 100,000
kN/m3 (289 to 362 lb/in3) correspond to moduli of elasticity of about 200,000 kN/m2 (28,450
psi). When nonlinear stresses and gaps are considered, the soils rigidity decreases significantly.

We shall deal in the following with the deformability of pile foundations.

To compare the horizontal deformability of piles and spread footings, computations have been
performed for piles of 10 m (33 ft) length and footings with a similar vertical bearing capacity,
subjected to identical horizontal forces. And the correspondent horizontal deflections then
computed. We have considered, in agreement with the Russian code (see Komov and
Rabinovitch 1984), an equivalent soil strip of 1.10 m (43 in.) for piles with 0.40 m (16 in.) in
diameter and 2.50 m (98 in.) for piles with 1.50 m (59 in.) in diameter.

Denoting by Kp, (Krf) the horizontal rigidities of the piles (spread foundations) the following
results have been obtained:

Diameter of piles Kp/ksf

0.40 m (16 in.) 1/5 . . . 1/2
1.50 m (59 in.) 1/2.5 . . . 1/1.5

This shows that from the point of view of horizontal deflection the piles are more deformable
that the equivalent spread foundations.
Vertical settlements and rotations

Contrary to the prevailing view, foundations on piles do not insure a high degree of vertical fixity.
To assess the order of magnitude of the vertical rigidity of piles, we shall admit that at service
load, a settlement of 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the pile diameter Dp is to be expected for reinforced
concrete piles at service loads (Meyerhof 1976: Poulos 1980). Assuming that the piles are usually
loaded at - 80 percent of the maximum service load only, we obtain

= (3)

Where: = 0.25-0.40 percent

Let us consider an equivalent spread foundation where the normal stress is . usually, the
allowable stress is a= 100 to 400 kN/m2 (14 to 57 psi), so that we may admit a usual service
stress = 80 to 320 kN/m2 (11 to 45 psi).

The corresponding settlement results

= (4)

Equating (3) and (4) yields the equivalent subgrade moduli

= (5)

In the case of small pile diameters with Dp= 0.40 m (16 in.), we obtain: = 50,000 to 320,000
kN/m3 (181 to 1158 lb/in.3)- somewhat greater than the usual subgrade moduli obtained for
spread foundations. In the case of large pile diameters with Dp =1.50 m (59 in.), we obtain:

=85.000 kN/m3 (47 to 308 lb/in.3). i.e., the same order of magnitude as for spread
foundations.

RIGIDITY OF STRUCTURAL WALLS

At first we shall check the rigidity of the structural walls without openings by referring to Fig.
4(a). A fixed supports analysis yields the maximum deflection and the corresponding rigidity Fig.
4(b)

1
= (6)

An elastic supports analysis involves Fig.4(c,d)
 = + + (7)

Where uH is the supplementary maximum deflection due to horizontal soil deformation and u
is the supplementary maximum deflection due to the foundations rotation (usually uH< u)

= 1/( + + ) (8)

Computations of 0.20-m (8-in.) thick structural walls with heights of 20 to 30m (66 to 99 ft) on
spread foundations of 1.50/6.00 (5 to 20ft) to 2.50/10.00 m (8 to 33ft) have yielded the following
results.

For weak soils: ks = 20,000 to 30,000 kN/m3 (72 to 108 lb/in.3); / = 0.05 to 0.10.

For strong soils: ks = 100,000 kN/m3 (362 lb/ in.3); / = 0.20 to 0.30.

If we replace the elastic supports analysis by a fixed supports analysis, we can obtain the same
results by considering shearwalls with an "equivalent length" Leq (Fig. 5):

For weak soils: Leq/L = 0.4 to 0.6.

For strong soils: Leq/L = 0.5 to 0.7.

The decrease of the structural walls' rigidities involves an increase of the fundamental period T
and a corresponding decrease of the seismic forces acting upon them. Accepting the provisions
of SEAOC 88 (1988) gives a decrease proportional to 1/T2/3 which results in a decrease of seismic
forces acting on the structure of 35 percent (strong soils) and 65 percent (weak soils), when the
structural walls are the only resistant elements.

From these results, it follows that neglecting soil de- formability leads to very large errors in the
evaluation of rigidities of the structural walls, which is clearly unacceptable in design.

Turning to coupled shearwalls on deformable soil, we shall again compare their rigidities
resulting from a fixed support

The decrease in the rigidity is due to the presence of the openings and to the soil deformability.
When considering the effect of the openings we obtain:


For weak lintels (slab coupling): / =0.20

For strong lintels- 0.20 m width/ 0.60 m height (8/24 in.): / =0.40 to 0.50, where

denotes the rigidity of the structural wall with openings and denotes the rigidity of the same
wall without openings. The rigidities are defined by referring to deflections at top story under a
triangularly distributed lateral load.

By comparing these results with the results displayed earier in this section, we note that the
decrease in rigidity due to soil deformability is significantly greater than the decrease due to the
presence of the openings. When both soil deformability and presence of openings are
considered, we can expect very important decreases of rigidity compared to fixed end
shearwalls with no openings.

RIGIDITY OF MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES

As expected, the effect of soil deformability on the rigidity of moment-resisting frames is

significantly less than the effect on the rigidity of structural walls.

To evaluate its order of magnitude, we have analyzed the frames shown in Fig. 6. For each frame
we have taken into account: 1) two types of soils: weak ones with ks = 20,000 kN/m3 (72 lb/in.3)
and strong ones with ks= 100,000 kN/m3 (362 lb/in.3); and 2) two types of lintels: weak ones (slab
coupling) and strong ones of 0.20/0.60 m (8124 in.)

Denoting the frame rigidity yielded by a fixed supports analysis as and the frame rigidity
yielded by an elastic supports analysis as KFR we obtain

Weak soil / =0.70 to 0.90

Strong soils / =0.93 to 0.96

The corresponding decrease of seismic forces (according to provisions of SEAOC (1988) vary
between 2 and 11 percent); this is of tittle practical significance.

DUAL STRUCTURES -INTENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEISMIC FORCES

When dealing with dual structures, soil deformability affects several factors:

a. The intensity of seismic forces.

b. The distribution of the resultant seismic force between structural walls and frames.

c. The intensity and distribution of torsional forces.

d. The stresses due to temperature changes.

The first two aspects are dealt with in this section, while the other aspects will be investigated
in later sections.

We have seen that the sensitivity of the structural walls to the soil deformability is much greater
than the sensitivity of the moment-resisting frames. Consequently, we may expect that when
compared with elastic supports analyses what will be displayed when compared with fixed
supports analyses includes:
 a. Significant decreases of the resultant seismic forces in dual structures where the
structural walls are predominant.
b. Significant changes in the distribution of the resultant seismic force-marking an increase
of the ratio taken by the frames.

We checked the order of magnitude of these two effects by referring to the structure of a ten-
story building where weak and strong soils were considered (Fig. 7).

Denoting the sum of the rigidities of the structural walls (moment-resisting frames) yielded by a

fixed supports analysis by ( ), and the total seismic force issued from a fixed (elastic)
o
supports analysis by F (F), we obtain:

Frames rigidity predominant ( = 0.5 ) F/Fo=88 to 0.96

Equal rigidities of structural wall ( = ) F/Fo=0.82 to 0.92

Structural walls' rigidity predominant ( = 2 ) F/Fo= 0.73 to 0.85

When dealing with the distribution of forces between structural walls and frames, we shall refer

to the total shear force acting on the structural walls ( )as well as to the total moment

acting on the structural walls ( ):

Structural walls' rigidity predominant: / = 0.52 to 0.62 / =0.23 to 0.35

Equal rigidities of frames and structural walls: / =0.81 to 0.96; / = 0.43 to 0.76

Frames rigidity predominant: / = 0.83 to 0.98: / = 0.47 to 0.82.
The results indicate that the changes brought by the soil deformability in the evaluation of the
total seismic force, and especially in the distribution of this force between structural walls and
frames, are important. Consequently, a fixed supports analysis, accepted by most designers, is
very far from reality, and it leads to overdesigned structural walls and underdesigned frames.

GENERAL TORSION

Structures with significant eccentricity (usually due to the eccentric position of structural
walls/cores) are subjected, in addition to the translational shear forces, to significant
supplementary torsional shear forces (Fig. 8). The general moment of torsion results.

= (9)

A rigid rotation of the slab with respect to the center of rigidity (CR) occurs. The position of
the center of rigidity depends on the relative rigidities of the vertical resistant elements; CR is
close to the strongest elements (structural walls or cores) and its position differs from floor to
floor. Usually the maximum torsional shear forces occur at the ground floor.

The total shear force results as the sum of the translational and the torsional shear forces

= + (10)

The rigidity of the structural walls decreases with the soil deformability much more than the
rigidity of the frames, entailing:

a. A decrease of the resultant seismic force (see section entitled Dual Structures - Intensity and
Distribution of Seismic Forces) which leads to a decrease of the general moment of torsion:

b. A removal of the center of rigidity away from the vicinity of the structural walls/cores to the
center of masses; namely a supplementary decrease of the general moment of torsion. We shall
focus our attention on the second effect.

To determine the position of the center of rigidity (CR), we move the resultant force F [position
X1, x2 .... (Fig. 9)]; and check the torsional angle for each position; = 0 indicates the position
of the center of rigidity: =
We can now consider two positions of the resultant force F, where:

a. F passes through the center of masses (CM);the correspondent shear forces are due to
the combined effect of translation and torsion

= +
b. F passes through the center of rigidity (CR): the shear forces are only due to translation
Q.
By deducting (b) from (a), we find the torsional shear forces

=
Let us refer to the asymmetric structure shown in Fig. 8. To check the effect of the soil
deformability on the torsional shear forces occurring in the columns, we have computed the
sum of these forces in the columns a, b, c, d, e. A weak soil with ks= 20,000 kN/m3 (72lb/in.3) and
a strong soil: ks=100,000 kN/m3 (362 lb/in.3) were considered denotes the sum of the
torsional forces when fixed ends are assumed; denotes the same sum when elastic
supports are assumed. The computations yielded the following ratios:

Weak soil Strong soil

Ground floor / 0.35 0.63
1st floor 0.44 0.71
2nd floor 0.50 0.76

Obviously, the maximum effect of the soil deformability occurs at ground floor, but the effect
also remains significant at the first and second floor. For average soils, decreases of about half
of the total shear forces may be expected. Although the results refer to a particular case, they
are significant. It is clear that fixed end analyses lead to an important overestimation of the
torsional shear forces developing the columns.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE CHANGES

Perhaps the most drastic drop of stresses due to soil deformability occurs in the analysis of
structural walls as a part of a dual structure, subject to temperature changes.

The structure shown in Fig. 10 is justified from an architectural point of view (it allows placing
of staircases at the building's extremities) and from an aseismic point of view (it avoids excessive
asymmetry while the torsional forces can be taken easily by the two existing cores).
Nevertheless, the designers refrain from using it because, according to a fixed supports analysis,
high bending moments develop in the bottom sections of the structural walls due to
temperature changes.

An analysis taking into account soil deformability completely changes this picture and indicates
very low bending moments in the structural walls/cores.

Let us denote by , the maximum shear forces and moments resulted from a fixed
supports analysis and by Qsw, Msw the same stresses obtained from an elastic supports analysis.

The ratios / and / are given in the following table for the 10-story, 60-m (197
ft.); long structure shown in . Fig. 11, subject to a uniform temperature change.

Weak soil Strong soil

= 20,000 /3 = 100,000 /3
(72 /.3 ) (362 /.3 )
0 0.32
/ = 0.18
0 0.19
/ = 0.04

It is obvious that a fixed end supports analysis yields a completely distorted picture of stresses.
The actual bending moments (which are the most important in the shearwalls design) are very
low and the structure displayed in Fig. 11 can be used safely in design.

CONCLUSION

The results we have obtained point to the inescapable conclusion that the fixed supports
analyses used in the design of buildings with structural walls lead to important distortions of the
rigidities and stresses. We have to perform analyses either by taking into account the soil
deformability or to perform fixed supports analyses in which we have to decrease.