Soil-Structure Interaction: A Review

ABSTRACT :
The term "ground-structure interaction" (SSI) refers to how
soil (the ground) and a structure placed on it interact. The
movement of the ground-structure system is essentially a
result of a mutual stress exchange, with the type of ground
and the kind of structure both having an impact. Particularly
in seismically active regions, this is applicable. Different soil
and structural combinations can either increase or decrease
movement and the ensuing damage. Buildings on malleable
ground tend to sustain less damage than those on stiff
ground. The sinking of foundations, exacerbated by a seismic
event, is a second interaction effect related to the mechanical
characteristics of the soil. Soil liquefaction is the name of this
phenomenon.
• The majority of civil engineering structures include a
structural component that is in direct contact with the
ground. The structural and ground displacements are not
independent of one another when external forces, like
earthquakes, act on these systems. Soil-structure interaction
(SSI) is the process by which the motion of the structure is
influenced by the reaction of the soil and the response of the
soil is influenced by the motion of the structure. The review
given in this research paper deals with the study of static and
dynamic effects of soil-structure interaction. It also dealing
with the different-different consideration effects of the soil
structure interaction and its effects on pile foundation.
Keywords:
Soil structure interaction, static and dynamic SSI,
analytic methods, pile foundation.
1.Introduction:
The loads operating on civil engineering structures are
conveyed to the supporting soil by foundation elements like
footings, rafts, piles, etc., and the structures are erected on
soil (or rock) formations. The strains in the foundation and
superstructure may change as a result of the imposed loads
deforming the supporting soil. It is possible to define this
connection between soil and foundation as soil-foundation-
structure interaction (SSI), more formally known as soil-
structure interaction (SSI), which affects the stresses in
various structural elements (including foundation). The mat
foundation is viewed as a slab sitting on springs (representing
soil) as an illustration of a regularly used method for
analysing the interactions between soil and structures.
standard design methods for common structures.
Traditional structural design techniques ignore the impacts of
SSI. For light structures in relatively stiff soil, such as low-rise
buildings and straightforward rigid retaining walls, neglecting
SSI is feasible. However, the influence of SSI becomes more
noticeable for massive structures supported by relatively soft
soils, such as nuclear power stations, tall skyscrapers, and
elevated highways.
 1.1 Static and Dynamic Loading Effects
Soil-structure interaction issues can be roughly divided into
two groups based on the types of loadings: (i) Static soil-
structure interaction, including GEOMECHANICS AND
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING - Soil, Foundation, and Structure
Interaction Analysis. Dynamic soil-structure interaction, which
deals with the situation of dynamic loads, and (ii) static loads
acting on the structure. The two groups of questions are
essentially distinct from one another and have distinct
analytical approaches.
1.1.1 STATIC SSI
The term "static soil-structure interaction" refers to the
interaction between the foundation of a structure and the
soil as a result of static loads operating on the structure. The
word "static" is frequently omitted, hence the term "soil-
structure interaction" or SSI may be used instead. Identifying
the root cause of the soil-structure interaction problem is the
biggest challenge.
Determining the contact pressure between the foundation
and the soil is where the main challenge in soil-structure
interaction problems lies. By accepting some arbitrary
simplification, such as assuming that contact pressure is
linear, conventional foundation design may be able to get
around this problem. While such hypotheses might be
deemed acceptable for basic research or insignificant
foundational components, they shouldn't be applied to the
examination of significant structures.
A description of the state of the soil-foundation contact
presents a challenging task. The majority of structural
foundations will display some frictional traits at the
connection. On the other hand, because the soil's strength is
finite, the frictional forces will likewise reach a limit.
Additionally, variables including pore water pressure, the type
of loads placed on the foundation, the flexibility of the
foundation, and time-dependent impacts may have an impact
on the interface's state. Therefore, it may be wise to take into
account the two extreme scenarios of interface behaviour,
which range from the entirely frictionless (smooth) case to
the completely adhesive (adhesive) situation. Therefore, it
may be wise to take into account the two extreme scenarios
of interface behaviour, which range from the entirely
frictionless (smooth) case to the completely adhesive
(adhesive) situation. The analysis of the interaction problem
is greatly streamlined by the assumption of smooth contact.
According to Shield and Anderson (1966), adhesion or friction
generally has the effect of reducing foundation settlement.
The loads from the structures are transmitted to the soil
through the foundation. The distribution of loads across the
foundation depends on factors such as the geometry, rigidity,
and flexibility of the structures, as well as the soil properties.
Load transfer mechanisms include direct bearing, skin
friction, and end- bearing. Static soil- structure interaction
analysis allows for sensitivity analysis to evaluate the
influence of various factors on the structural response. By
varying parameters such as soil properties, foundation types,
or structural configurations, engineers can assess the
sensitivity of the structure to these variations and optimize
the design accordingly. The analysis of static SSI helps
engineers and designers to evaluate the performance of
structures under different loading conditions, assess the
potential for settlement or differential movements, optimize
the design parameters, and ensure the structural integrity
and stability. By considering the interaction between the
structure and the underlying soil, static SSI analysis
contributes to more reliable and cost- effective engineering
solutions.
Overall, static soil-structure interaction analysis provides
valuable information for designing structures that can
withstand static loads effectively and ensure their long-term
stability. It helps engineers make informed decisions
regarding foundation design, material selection, and
structural configurations to achieve safe and efficient
structures.
1.1.2 Dynamic SSI
SSI will be used to depict both static and dynamic loading
instances in this chapter. When compared to a similar
structure resting on a rigid support, the dynamic properties
of a structure resting on flexible soil are different. The effect
is that soil is flexible. in the structure's longer basic period.
Both wave radiation and the hysteretic action of the soil
dissipate a portion of the vibrational energy of the flexible
supported structure into the supporting and surrounding soil.
When considering the scenario of seismic waves travelling
through the ground, the presence of a relatively stiff
foundation may disperse the seismic wave that was incident,
resulting in a base motion that is distinct from the motion of
the free-field.
When a structure experiences dynamic loading, the soil
surrounding it also undergoes dynamic response due to the
transmitted vibrations. This interaction can significantly affect
the behaviour of the structure, leading to changes in its
natural frequencies, damping characteristics and response
amplitudes. Proper understanding and accounting for DSSI is
crucial to accurately predict the structural response and
ensure its performance under dynamic loads.
BY considering DSSI in the design process, engineers can
optimize structural configurations, select appropriate
foundation systems, and develop effective mitigation
strategies to enhance the performance and resilience of
structures. Additionally, DSSI analysis is particularly important
for critical infrastructure such as nuclear power plants,
bridges, tall buildings and offshore structures, where accurate
predictions of dynamic behaviour are crucial for ensuring
public safety.
Overall, dynamic soil – structure interaction is an essential
consideration in the analysis and design of structures
subjected to dynamic loading helping engineers create safer
and more resilient infrastructures. A direct technique involves
modelling the soil and structure in tandem in a single phase,
taking both inertial and kinematic interaction into
consideration. interaction with inertia occurs in structure as a
result of internal vibrations that result in base shear and base
moment, which in turn lead to foundation displacements
with respect to the free field. While foundation motion
deviates from free-field motions due to kinematic interaction
caused by the presence of stiff foundation elements on or in
the soil.

[1]

2 Considerations in Soil-Structure Interaction

Effects
When a structure is examined with the assumption that its
base is rigid, it is considered to have no effects on soil-
structure interactions. Even if the interaction force affects the
foundation, this circumstance is now taken into
consideration. The size of the force and the foundation's
flexibility will determine how much the interaction forces will
affect how the soil moves. The structure's inertia and base
mat acceleration can be used to calculate the interaction
forces. For a specific soil site and a specific free-field seismic
excitation, the effects of soil-structure interaction increase
with structure weight. The majority of civil structures,
whether they are located on hard or medium soil, do not
exhibit any SSI effects. As previously stated, large structures,
such as nuclear power plants (NPP) reactor buildings and
hydraulic structures like dams, are more susceptible to the
effects of SSI. We can get the conclusion that these sectors of
the building industry are where the soil interaction in
earthquake engineering study was developed and utilised
most frequently.
The soil's flexibility is a further factor in the impacts of the
soil-structure interaction. More likely to occur are SSI impacts
when the soil is softer. This applies to a specific building and
location that has experienced free-field seismic excitation.
Note: The product of mass density of the soil and the
square of shear wave velocity will give the soil shear
module. In practice, the mass density of the soil will
vary around 2,0 t/m3. Hence the main characteristic of
soil stiffness can be considered to be the shear wave
velocity Vs.
If Vs< 300m/s then the soil is considered to be soft
If Vs> 800m/s then the soil is considered to be hard
If Vs>1100m/s the soil is considered to be rigid.

Other consideration we should consider in SSI are as

follow

2.1 Foundation type : The type of foundation used for

the structure can have significant impact on soil-
structure interaction. Different foundation systems, such
as shallow foundation systems or deep foundations
interact with the soil in distinct ways. The choice of
foundation type should consider the soil conditions,
structural requirements and the expected dynamic
loads.

2.2 Dynamic loads : The characteristics of the dynamic

loads applied to the structure, such as frequency
content,
Amplitude and duration need to be carefully considered.
Different types of dynamic loads, such as seismic waves,
wind- induced vibrations, or machinery- induced
vibrations, can have varying effects on soil-structure
interaction. Analysing the spectral content and time
history of the dynamic loads is essential to accurately
predict the response of the structure and the soil.

2.3 Analysis methods : Various analysis methods are

available for studying soil- structure interaction, ranging
from simplified engineering methods to advanced
numerical simulations. The choice of analysis method
depends on the complexity of the problem. the available
resources and the desired level of accuracy. Analytical
solutions, numerical techniques can all employed for
soil- structure interaction analysis.

By considering these factors in the analysis and design

process, engineers can develop a better understanding
0f soil-structure interaction effects. This enables the
performance and enhance the safety of structures
subjected to dynamic loading.

3. What are the effects of Soil Structure

Interaction?
 Soil Foundation the SSI's negative effects are more
prominently highlighted. As already noted, an increase
in time period is not necessarily a good thing, even
though studies have shown that designs based on the
interaction of soil and structure extend design life.

Seismic waves lengthen when they are on a site with soft

soil sediments. This causes the natural period to rise,
which induces resonance. With a long duration
vibration, this occurs.

The necessity for ductility increases together with the

natural cycle. Permanent deformation and soil failure
could ensue from this, which would increase the
structural seismic response.
When a structure is subject to a seismic force (seismic
excitation), the foundation's interaction with the earth
affects how the ground moves. According to FEMA P-
750 and NEHRP, the soil structure interaction might
result in two different types of occurrences or
consequences. They are:
1. Kinematic Interaction
2. Inertial Interaction
3. Soil Foundation flexibility effects

3.1 Kinematic interaction

The term "free-field motion" refers to the soil

displacement brought on by an earthquake's ground
motion. The foundation, which is based on the dirt, does
not adhere to this free field motion. The foundation's
failure to sink with the ground's free field motion results
in the kinematic interaction.
3.2 Interial Interaction

Inertial interaction refers to the additional soil

deformation brought on by the transmission of inertial
force to the soil by the superstructure. The kinematic
effect of SSI is more noticeable when there is less ground
shaking. This causes the time to prolong and the
radiation damping to rise. When the shaking becomes
more intense, the soil modulus deterioration in the near
field and the gaping of the soil pile limits the radiation
damping. The inertial damping is more pronounced in
this circumstance. As a result, there will be too many
displacements close to the earth. The piling foundations
will suffer as a result of this. As a result, excessive
displacements will occur near the ground surface. This
will result in pile foundation damage.

The research and studies from previous and recent

earthquakes demonstrate that the total response of the
structure is influenced by the:
Response from the foundation
Response from the soil
When huge structures are subjected to earthquakes, SSI
have become a major cause of collapse. These include
the Hanshin Motorway, which was destroyed in 1995 as
a result of the Kobe earthquake.

The following are the factors that are associated to the

aforementioned effects:

Foundation stiffness and damping

Moments, torsion, and base shear are produced when a
vibrating structure creates inertia force. These are the
forces that cause displacements and rotations at the soil-
foundation contact. The produced displacement and
rotation are the result of soil and foundation elasticity.
This flexibility is the foundation of overall structural
stability.

Energy is dissipated as a result of the displacements

caused. This has an impact on the overall dampening of
the system.

As a result of all of these consequences.

These effects are rooted with the structural inertia it is
called as the inertial interaction effects.

4. Variations Existing Between the Free-field

motions and the foundation input motions

One important aspect of soil-structure interaction is the

variations between the free-field motions and the
foundation input motions. The free-field motions
represent the ground motions that would occur in the
absence of any structure, while the foundation input
motions are the ground motions that are transmitted to
the structures through its foundation.

The interaction between the structure and the soil

causes the transmitted ground motions at the
foundation level to a different from the free-field
motions. Here are some of the key variations that can
occur:
1.Amplification or attenuation: The soil properties, such as
stiffness and damping, can cause amplification or
attenuation of the ground motions. Depending on the
characteristics of the soil, the motions at the foundation
level may be higher or lower
compared to the free-field.

2.Phase shifts: Soil-structure interaction can introduce

phase shifts in the ground motions. The phase
relationship between different frequencies of the ground
motions may change as they propagate through the soil
and interact with the structure. This phase shift can
influence the dynamic response of the structure.

3.Frequency content changes: The soil-structure interaction

can alter the frequency content of the ground motions.
Certain frequencies may be amplified or damped by the
soil, resulting in a different spectral content at the
foundation level compared to the free-field.

Understanding these variations is crucial for accurately

assessing the seismic response of structures and
designing them to withstand earthquake loads.
Engineers and researchers use various analytical and
numerical techniques, such as finite element analysis
and boundary element method, to model and simulate
soil-structure interaction effects and evaluate the
response of structures under different ground motion
scenarios.

5. METHODS :
Methods for evaluating the aforementioned effects are
classified as direct and substructure approaches. In a
direct analysis, the soil and structure are combined into
a single model and analysed as a whole. In the context of
a substructure The SSI problem is divided into various
sections, which are then integrated to generate the final
answer.

Methods based on the half-space theory

a. Direct approach
b. Indirect approach

5.1 DIRECT APPROACH:The soil is frequently depicted

as a continuum (e.g., finite elements) together with
foundation and structural components, transmitting
boundaries at the mesh's limits, and interface elements
at the foundation's margins.
This method relies on wave propagation analysis
through the soil to evaluate site reaction. These
assessments are typically carried out using an equivalent
linear representation of soil properties in finite element,
finite difference, or boundary element numerical
formulations (Wolf, 1985;Lysmer et al.,., 1999).
All of the SSI effects listed above can be addressed
directly, but incorporating kinematic interaction is
difficult since it involves the specification of spatially
varying input motions in three dimensions.
Because direct solution of the SSI problem is
computationally difficult, difficult because it necessitates
spatial specification

Three-dimensional input motions with changeable

input.
Because direct solution of the SSI problem is
computationally difficult. It is rarely employed in
practise, especially when the system is geometrically
complex or has considerable nonlinearities in the soil or
structural materials.
Direct approach is one in which the soil and structure
are modelled together in a single step accounting for
both inertial and kinematic interaction. Inertial
interaction develops in structure due to own vibrations
giving rise to shear and base moment, which in turn
causes displacements of the foundation relative to free
field. While kinematic interaction develops due to
presence of stiff foundation elements on or in soil
causing foundation motion to deviate from free-field
motions. [1]

This analysis provides a general overview of SSI and

highlights some important aspects. However, it’s
important to consult official sources, such as the Social
Security Administration, for the most up-to-date and
comprehensive information on SSI. Cat et al. in 2000
developed a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element
subsystem methodology to study the seismic soil-pile-
structure interaction effect (Fig.2).

[3]
FIG.2 EXAMPLE OF STRUCTURE AND PILE
FOUNDATION DEVELOPED USING FEM BASED ON
RESEARCH BY CAI ET AL,2000

5.1.1 Indirect approach :

In the direct approach, despite the presence of artificial

limits, a substantial amount of soil must be represented
around the building. [3] or static FEM analysis. The structure
is modelled in the same was as in case of the direct approach
and it is supported by spring elements (COMBIN14). For the
time-history analysis the earthquake record was generated
from the response spectra corresponding to class B, C, or D
soils in Eurocode 8.
SUBSTRUCTURE APPROACH:

The substructure method is one in which the analysis is

broken down into several steps using the superposition
principle to isolate the two primary causes of soil structure
interaction, which are the foundation's inability to match the
free field deformation and the effect of the dynamic response
of the structure foundation system on the movement of
supporting soil. In the past, it was considered that the
foundation of a structure was anchored to a rigid underlying
medium in the study and design of engineered structures
(Zhang et al. (1998), Celebi (2001)).

However, in recent decades, it has been recognised that Soil

Structure Interaction (SSI) affected the response
characteristics of a structural system due to the large and stiff
nature of the structure and, in many cases, soil softness.
Several research on the effect of SSI on the dynamic response
of structures such as nuclear power plants, high rise
structures, and elevated roadways have appeared in the
literature (Maheshwari et al., 2004, Boominathan et al., 2004,
Jaya et al., 2009, Wegner et al., 2009). The section that
follows presents a critical examination of the SSI analysis of
framed constructions supported on piling foundations.

5.2. Analytical methods

Single piles are mostly utilised for coastal structures like

mooring and berthing piles, but they are typically formed
in groups. Tall structures, offshore platforms, quays,
viaducts, and bridge piers, on the other hand, are typically
erected on piling groups. The difference between single
pile behaviour and pile group behaviour is that pile group
response is influenced by the nonlinear pile soil pile
interaction, the effect of the pile cap, pile spacing, and pile
arrangement with respect to the direction of applied force
(Charles et al. 2001). So, in order to gain a thorough grasp
of group behaviour, the single pile behaviour is explained
first, followed by group pile behaviour.

Analytical methods to predict lateral deflections, rotations

and stresses in single pile can be grouped under the
following four headings.
1. Winkler Approach
2. P-y Method
3. Elastic Continuum Approach
4. Finite Element Method

1.Winkler Approach
The Winkler method, commonly known as subgrade response
theory, is the earliest method for predicting pile deflections
and bending moments. to predict pile deflections and
bending moments. ‐ The approach uses a series of
unconnected linear springs to model the soil with stiffness,
Kh, expressed in units of force per length squared (FL‐2).

Despite its popularity, the approach is frequently

criticised for theoretical flaws and limits. The primary
drawbacks are that the modulus of subgrade reaction is
not a unique property of the soil, but is intrinsically
dependent on pile characteristics and the magnitude of
deflection; and the method is semiempirical in nature;
axial load effects are ignored, and the soil model used in
the technique is discontinuous. That is, the linearly
elastic Winkler springs behave separately, thus
displacements at one site are unaffected by
displacements or tensions at other points along the pile.
McClelland and Focht (1956) extended the subgrade
reaction approach by solving the beam bending problem
with nonlinear load versus deflection curves to simulate
the soil. The p-y technique of analysis is the name given
to their approach. With the advent of powerful personal
computers and commercial software such as COM624
(Wang and Reese 1993) and LPILE Plus3.0 (Reese et al.,
1997), this approach has gained favour in recent years.
The next section provides a brief overview of the p-y
method of analysis.

2.P-Y Method:
The p-y approach to analysis of response of laterally
loaded piles is essentially a modification (Horvath 1984)
of the basic Winkler model. The soil pressure per unit
length of pile is denoted by p, while the pile deflection is
denoted by y. A sequence of nonlinear p-y curves that
change with depth and soil type reflect the soil. Figure 3
depicts an example of a fictional p-y model. Because the
shape of the p-y curves is determined by field load
measurements, the technique is semiempirical in nature.
Based on the findings of field measurements on fully
instrumented piles, Reese (1977) generated a number of
empirical curves for typical soil types. The cubic
parabola, expressed by the following equation, is the
most commonly used analytical expression for p-y
curves.
y Deflection at half the ultimate soil resistance
where p Ultimate soil resistance per unit length of the
pile.
p y 1
p =0.5 { }↑
Pult y 5.0 3
y Deflection at one ‐ half of the ultimate soil
resistance
where p Ultimate soil resistance per unit length of pile.

[3]
FIG.3 p-y FIGURE FOR LATERALLY LOADED PILES

3.ELASTIC CONTINUUM APPROACH:

By assuming the soil to be a homogeneous elastic continuum,

Poulos (1971a, b) introduced the first methodical
methodology to analyse the behaviour of laterally loaded
piles and pile groups. According to this approach, the soil is a
homogenous, isotropic, semi-infinite elastic substance that is
unaffected by the presence of a pile and that sticks to the pile
when it is at the pile's rear near the surface (Poulos et al.
1980). This model considers the pile to be a thin rectangular
vertical strip separated into elements, with each element
being subject to uniform horizontal stresses that are
connected to the element displacements via the integral
solution of Mindlin's issue (Fig. 4).

[3]

FIG.4 CONTINUUM MODEL FOR LATERALLY LOADED PILE

STRESSES ACTNG ON (A) PILE (B) SOIL Adjacent to PILE.

4.FINITE ELEMENT METHOD:

By taking into account the elastic continuum theory, the
finite element method is a numerical technique that may be
used to describe the interaction between piles, soil, and
piles. The soil as a quasi-elastic, three-dimensional
continuum. Complex loading circumstances with a
continuous soil model have been analysed using finite
element techniques. The basic beam bending equation is
solved using one of the common numerical methods, such as
Galerkin, Collocation, or Rayleigh-Ritz, to get the pile
displacements and stresses. The various structural
components are represented by several sorts of elements.

Each finite element is defined by a set of nodes and is

characterized by its material properties and behaviour. When
it comes to soil-structure interaction (SSI), the finite element
method can be applied to analyse the behaviour of structures
embedded in or interacting with soil. SSI refers to the mutual
interaction between a structure (such as a building, bridge, or
foundation) and the surrounding soil or rock.

6.FRAMED STRUCTURES SUPPORTED ON PILE FOUNDATIONS

Despite the fact that a great deal of research has been done
on the interaction analysis of frame structures resting on
isolated footings, combined footings, etc., little research has
been done on frame structures resting on pile foundations
(Ingle and Chore 2007), with the exception of a few studies
that are discussed in the following section.

Ingle and Chore (2007) addressed the soil-structure

interaction (SSI) study of framed structures and the issues
with pile foundations, highlighting the need for interactive
analysis to construct frames resting on pile foundations by
taking a more logical approach and making realistic
assumptions. It was suggested that the stiffness of flexible
pile caps should also be taken into account, and that the
stiffness matrix for the substructure should be constructed by
taking into account the impact of all piles in each group. But
the fundamental issue with the construction structure is
three-dimensional in nature.
Although a complicated three-dimensional finite element
approach is relatively expensive in terms of time and memory
when used for the analysis, it makes it easier to simulate all
the relevant parameters realistically.

Using the 3D finite element approach, Chore and Ingle (2008

a) proposed a methodology for the thorough study of
building frames supported by pile groups embedded in soft
marine clay (Fig. 5).

[3]
FIG,2 TYPICAL BUILDING FRAME SUPPORTEDBY
GROUP OF PILES BASED ON RESEARCH BY CHORE
ET AL.2010
The interaction between the piles and the surrounding
soils playa crucial role in determining the load – bearing
capacity and performance of the foundation system.The
piles interact with the soil through various
mechanisms,such as skin friction and end- bearing.Skin
friction and end- bearing. Skin friction develops along
the pile shaft due to the adhesion and shearing
resistance between the pile and the soil, while end-
bearing occurs when the pile rests on a load-bearing
stratum.

7, Review and Discussions:

The presented review in this research paper shows that

the research on “Soil structure interaction”.In this study
we review the effects of soil structure interaction on pile
foundation and also study its effects and methods.We
studied about the static and dynamic effects of SSI.
The SSI study of a two bay single storey structure was
recently performed starting in 2008 using the
substructure approach. The soil was treated as
independent, linearly elastic springs in this analysis, and
the structure's reaction was determined by applying
lateral load to the top of the frame (Chore 2010). A four
bay, twelve storey RCC frame's SSI analysis was most
recently completed in 2012 utilising the discrete finite
element approach (NISA).

Based on the literature on SSI analysis of framed

structures supported on piling foundations, it has been
discovered that the majority of research published to
date
has investigated the marginal influence of soil structure
interaction on one and two bay single-story and two-
story framed constructions. As a result, it is necessary to
assess the impact of SSI on the reaction of highrise
structures.

Furthermore, the analysis was performed as a static

analysis by applying lateral load at the top of the frame,
so there is a need to understand the dynamic response of
the superstructure by taking into account the complex
behaviour of framed structures supported on pile
foundations subjected to dynamic forces.

Furthermore, the relationship between a building with

infill walls and its soil pile has not been investigated.
Under lateral loading, infill walls impart significant
lateral stiffness.

Additionally in 2003, Lu et al. used ANSYS to study the

effects of factors on the SSI system by taking into
account a 12 storey frame structure supported on a pile-
raft foundation. However, with a linear soil model, the
neglection of this impact does not accurately reflect the
structural response to intense earthquake excitation
when the structure and soil adjacent to the foundation
work are in the plastic range.

Therefore, the impact of the same must be taken into

account in the dynamic analysis.
(interface modelling) has not been investigated in soil
pile structure interaction studies.
8.Conclusion:

In order to wrap up the chapter on soil-structure

interaction (SSI), the author would like to offer
engineers a few suggestions.

1. One should determine the significance of SSI and

whether it should even be taken into consideration
at the outset. The answer is dependent on the
inertia of the structure, base mat size and
embedment, and soil data (in particular, wave
velocities in the soil). Most frequently, SSI can be
disregarded while analysing civil structures (i.e.,
structures can be examined using a platform model
with platform kinematical excitation provided by
seismologists and without soil springs)

2. If SSI is to be taken into account, it is important to

see if any basic premises can be used. Principal
Assumptions: Surface base mat, rigid base mat,
homogenous half-space or a layer of stiff rock as a
soil model (depends on actual geotechnical data).
The general advice is as follows. The simplest
model permitted by standards should be used as a
starting point. One should try to move to more
complex models, accounting to various unique SSI
effects, only if the results seem overly cautious. The
intricacy of the model and the results' conservatism
are typically trade-offs.

3. SSI effects vary on frequency. The majority of

impacts only apply within a specific frequency
range. Outside of this range, they might cause the
reverse alterations.
4. SSI analysis needs specialised equipment. Due to
the original problem's indefinite geometry, general-
purpose algorithms, such as FEM soft, cannot
handle SSI correctly. Use should be made of
specialised tools like CLASSI, SASSI, etc.The
borders should receive additional consideration if a
direct method is adopted. [4]

5. It is strongly advised to perform an early

examination of test cases (for instance, initial soil
without structure with the same bounds and
excitation).

6. When using FEM, specific attention must be paid

to the wave nature of SSI impacts; element size for
the soil and time step must be compared with
interest frequency ranges. Otherwise, the most
important consequences risk being overlooked.

7. According to Chore et al.'s 2010 study, the effect of

passive resistance of soil (which comes from full
scale soil pile model) also plays a significant part in
the reaction of system, despite accurate results
being obtained for portraying soil as Winkler
spring.

8. Different types of nonlinearity must be handled

correctly. SHAKE manages the primary
nonlinearity of the soil. The approximate treatment
of contact non-linearity is given above. A structure
must typically not include wave SSI at all if the
structure is very nonlinear.
 The research is ongoing now. The present objective is to
combine infinite soil linearity in Vext with internal
nonlinearity in Vint (including contact nonlinearity and
structural nonlinearity.

References
[1] P. M. Yesane, Y. M. Ghugal, and R. L. Wankhade, ‘Study on Soil-Structure Interaction: A Review’, Issue:
Special, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 737–741, 2016, doi: 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/047.

[2] B. Li, C. Fu, G. Liu, W. Wei, J. Duan, and B. Wang, ‘Influence of

Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic Response of a
Continuous Bridge with Friction Pendulum System’, Shock
and Vibration, vol. 2022, 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/7046036.
[3] S. Pulikanti and P. Kumar Ramancharla, ‘SSI Analysis of
Framed Structures Supported on Pile Foundations : A Review’,
2013. [Online]. Available: www.seipub.org/fgeFrontier
[4] M. V. Requena-Garcia-Cruz, R. Bento, P. Durand-Neyra, and A.
Morales-Esteban, ‘Analysis of the soil structure-interaction
effects on the seismic vulnerability of mid-rise RC buildings in
Lisbon’, Structures, vol. 38, pp. 599–617, Apr. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.024.