International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008

SOIL-BASEMENT STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON

DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ON BASEMENT WALL
Nurrachmad Wijayanto1 and I Wayan Sengara1
1

Civil Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Bandung Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung, Indonesia 40132
Email: nuno@si.itb.ac.id, iws@geotech.pauir.itb.ac.id

ABSTRACT: Dynamic soil-basement structure interaction using time-domain approach to recommend

dynamic lateral earth pressure on basement wall is presented. The analyses consider various parameters
involved in the soil-basement structure system. These parameters are soil condition or site-class, peak base
acceleration, frequency content of input motion, depth of basement, depth of base-rock, and stiffness of the
basement structure. The variations in soil condition are homogenous clay deposit with reference to IBC2006
site classification SC, SD and SE for hard soil, medium-stiff, and soft class, respectively. The study focused on
identifying sensitivity of these parameters on dynamic response of the soil-basement structure system. The
dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses were conducted using dynamic finite element software, adopting
non-linear elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb soil model with Rayleigh damping. Result of the analyses indicated
that distribution of the dynamic lateral earth pressure reach its maximum value on the basement wall with
almost linear pressure increments with depth on soft soil and non-linear pressure increments on medium-stiff
and stiff soil. The highest pressure increment is identified to occur near bottom of the basement wall. The
sensitivity analysis on the peak base acceleration results in higher maximum lateral earth pressure with
higher peak base acceleration with some variation depending upon the site-class. The maximum lateral earth
pressure and its point of application are increasing proportionally with depth of basement wall.
Recommendation of seismic lateral pressure distribution considering the site-class and peak base acceleration
is provided.

1.

INTRODUCTION

During the last decades, the basement structures were extensively built in most big cities in
Indonesia. As it has been widely known that most of these big cities are located on the perimeter of
tectonically active region, these basement structures were often subjected to severe earthquake
loading. On the other hand, the behavior of basement structure during the earthquake loading is not
well understood as it involves the interaction between soil and basement structure. This study is
conducted in order to analyze the behavior of basement wall subjected to earthquake loading
which incorporating the effect of soil-structure interaction. In particular, the result of this study is
to provide recommendations of dynamic lateral earth pressure on basement wall considering
several parameters, such as soil condition or site-class, peak base acceleration, frequency content
of input motion, depth of basement, depth of base-rock, and stiffness of the basement structure.
2.

METHODOLOGY

In order to obtain the recommendation of the distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure on
basement wall, the analyses were performed with PLAXIS Dynamics Finite Element Code
software (Brinkgreve et al., 2002). This software uses time-domain approach to model the 2-D
earthquake wave propagation from the base rock to the basement structure. In PLAXIS Dynamic
time-domain formulation, the damping matrix is formed by means of Rayleigh damping scheme
(Rayleigh et al., 1945). This damping scheme uses Rayleigh Alpha and Beta coefficients as
multipliers to mass matrix and stiffness matrix, respectively, as described by Cook (1989). The
input values of these coefficients are obtained and verified with DEEPSOIL software (Hashash et
al., 2002).

Back to Table of Contents

389

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008

2.1

Soil Dynamic Properties

The analyses were conducted on a basement structure which is constructed on single thick
homogeneous clay layer based on the soil dynamic properties classification described by Uniform
Building Code (UBC), 1997, which are:

2.2

1.

SC, soft rock or stiff clay, with shear wave velocity of 1200 ft/s < vs 2500 ft/s (360 m/s
< vs 760 m/s, or (N1)60 > 50, or Su 2000 psf (100 kPa).

2.

SD, firm clay, with shear wave velocity of 600 ft/s < vs 1200 ft/s (180 m/s < vs 360
m/s, or 15 (N1)60 50, or 1000 psf Su 2000 psf (50 kPa Su 100 kPa).

3.

SE, soft clay, with shear wave velocity of vs 600 ft/dt (180 m/dt), or 15 (N1)60 50, or
clay with PI > 20, w 40%, or Su < 500 psf (25 kPa).
Earthquake Input Motion

The input motions used in the analyses are synthetic input motions generated from earthquake
target spectra of Jakarta with subduction and shallow crustal earthquake mechanisms using
EZFRISK software (Risk Engineering, Inc, 2004). The target spectrums for Jakarta were
previously obtained from Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). The target spectrums for
subduction and shallow crustal earthquake mechanisms are scaled to 0.1g, 0.2g and 0.3g at PGA
period.

Figure 1 Finite element model of homogeneous soil layer, elastic bedrock and basement structure in PLAXIS.

2.3

Dynamic Finite Element Modeling

The 2-D dynamic finite element analyses were performed with PLAXIS software, in which the soil
and the baserock are modeled as solid elements and the basement structure is modeled as concrete
beam and column elements without the presence of upper structure. The left and right boundaries
are modeled as wave absorbent boundaries and placed at considerable distance from the basement
structure, in order to avoid the earthquake wave reflected perfectly as in the case of full fixities
boundaries. The earthquake wave is propagated from the baserock with various depths from 30
meters to 50 meters. The finite element model of soil, baserock and basement structure is
schematically drawn in Figure 1.
The soil shear strength parameters as inputs to the PLAXIS model based on IBC 1996 site
classification are given in Table 1. The dimension and material parameter of concrete and beam
column are shown in Table 2.

Back to Table of Contents

390

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008
Table 1 Soil shear strength parameter input in PLAXIS based on UBC 1997 site classification.

Site
Class

(kN/m3)

cu ref (kN/m2)

cu increment (kN/m2)

Ko

C
D
E

19
16.5
14

50.000
25.000
3.000

4.350
3.472
3.094

0.722
0.581
0.566

Table 2 Dimension and material parameters of concrete beam and column in basement structure.

Structural
Element
Beam
Column

b (m)

h (m)

1
1

0.3
0.6

EA
(kN/m)
8250000
16500000

EI
(kNm2/m)
61875
495000

0.15
0.15

(kN/m3)
24
24

In order to analyze the effects of local soil condition, earthquake mechanism and peak base
acceleration (PBA) level on distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure, a set of analyses is
divided into 18 scenarios where the depth of basement and the depth of baserock are kept constant
at 12 meters and 30 meters, respectively. These scenarios are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 Scheme of analyses with constant basement depth of 12 meters to analyze the effect of local soil
condition, earthquake mechanism and PBA level to the distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure.
Case

Site
Classification

Earthquake
mechanism

PBA

Depth of
Basement

Depth of
Baserock

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
Case 9
Case 10
Case 11
Case 12
Case 13
Case 14
Case 15
Case 16
Case 17

Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Soft clay
Soft clay
Soft clay
Soft clay
Soft clay

Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal

0.1g
0.2g
0.3g
0.1g
0.2g
0.3g
0.1g
0.2g
0.3g
0.1g
0.2g
0.3g
0.1g
0.2g
0.3g
0.1g
0.2g

12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m
12m

30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m

Case 18

Soft clay

Shallow crustal

0.3g

12m

30m

Another different scheme of analyses is also conducted to analyze the sensitivity of basement
structure depth on the distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure of basement wall. In this case,
the depth of basement varies by 8 meters, 12 meters and 16 meters. This scheme of analyses is
shown briefly in Table 4.
Finally, the analyses are also performed at different depth of baserock with shallow crustal
earthquake input motion at PBA level 0.1g and the depth of basement is kept constant at 16
meters. These analyses are summarized in Table 5.

Back to Table of Contents

391

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008
Table 4 Scheme of analyses with subduction mechanism input motion, PBA 0.2g and constant baserock depth
of 30 meters to analyze the effect of basement depth to the distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure.
Case

Site
Classification

Earthquake
mechanism

PBA

Depth of
Basement

Depth of
Baserock

Case 19
Case 20
Case 21
Case 22
Case 23
Case 24
Case 25
Case 26

Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Soft clay
Soft clay

Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction
Subduction

0.2g
0.2g
0.2g
0.2g
0.2g
0.2g
0.2g
0.2g

8m
12m
16m
8m
12m
16m
8m
12m

30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m
30m

Case 27

Soft clay

Subduction

0.2g

16m

30m

Table 5 Scheme of analyses with shallow crustal fault earthquake mechanism input motion, PBA 0.1g and
constant basement depth of 16 meters to analyze the effect of baserock depth to the distribution of dynamic
lateral earth pressure.

3.

Case

Site
Classification

Earthquake
mechanism

PBA

Depth of
Basement

Depth of
Baserock

Case 28
Case 29
Case 30
Case 31
Case 32
Case 33
Case 34
Case 35

Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Stiff clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Firm clay
Soft clay
Soft clay

Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal
Shallow crustal

0.1g
0.1g
0.1g
0.1g
0.1g
0.1g
0.1g
0.1g

16m
16m
16m
16m
16m
16m
16m
16m

30m
40m
50m
30m
40m
50m
30m
40m

Case 36

Soft clay

Shallow crustal

0.1g

16m

50m

THE RESULT OF ANALYSIS

3.1

Surface Response Spectra for Different Local Soil Condition due to Effect of PBA
Level

Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the surface response spectrum for stiff clay, firm clay and soft clay as
results from wave propagation originated at base rock. It can be seen clearly that soft clay
amplifies the earthquake wave at greatest level compared to stiff clay and firm clay.
Surface Response Spectra for PBA 0.1g

Surface Response Spectra for PBA 0.2g

0.7

1.2
Stiff Clay

0.6

Soft Clay

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.5

Stiff Clay

Firm Clay

0.4
0.3
0.2

Firm Clay
Soft Clay

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0.1

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Period (s)

Period (s)

Figure 2 Surface response spectra for input motion with PBA 0.1g and 0.2g.

Back to Table of Contents

392

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008
Surface Response Spectra for PBA 0.3g
1.2
Stiff Clay

Acceleration (g)

Firm Clay
Soft Clay

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Period (s)

Figure 3 Surface response spectra for input motion with PBA 0.3g.

3.2

Distribution of Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure on Basement Wall due to Effect of

Local Soil Condition Variation

In this scheme of analyses, the input motions used are shallow crustal earthquakes with PBA 0.1g,
0.2g and 0.3g, while the basement depth and the baserock depth are kept constant at 30 meters and
12 meters, respectively. During the earthquake, the basement wall shows relative movements
towards and away from the adjacent soil. The typical minimum and maximum movements of the
basement wall for different types of soil are shown in Figure 4. These dynamic movements
induced dynamic lateral earth pressure as function of time. When the wall moves away from the
soil, the total lateral earth pressure is decreasing and vice versa. The maximum decrement and
increment of dynamic lateral earth pressure for PBA 0.1g and 0.3g are shown in Figure 5 and
Figure 6, respectively.

0.05

0.03

0.06

0.07

0.05

0.08

10

Stiff clay

10

Soft clay

0.09

0.11

Stiff clay

10

Soft clay

Stiff clay
Firm clay

Firm clay
12

0.07

Firm clay
12

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0.025

Horizontal wall movement (m)

Horizontal wall movement (m)

Horizontal wall movement (m)

0.02

Soft clay
12

Figure 4 Horizontal maximum basement wall movement for basement depth 12 meters, baserock depth 30
meters and shallow crustal input motion with PBA 0.1g (left), 0.2g (middle) and 0.3g (right).

It can be inferred from figures below that the maximum dynamic pressure decrement is the largest
in stiff clay, followed by firm clay and soft clay. These decrements reach their maximum values at
the base of the wall. For the maximum dynamic pressure increment, the basement which lies on
the soft clay shows an almost linear distribution along the wall, while the stiff clay shows
nonlinear distribution. For stiff clay and firm clay, the dynamic increment pressures reach their
maximum at the base of the wall, while soft clay shows different behavior which approximately at
0.75 H from top of the wall. It is also shown that at the level of basement beam, there are
significant increment and decrement of dynamic pressure compared to surrounding wall level. This
is due to additional stiffness caused by beams and plates.

Back to Table of Contents

393

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008
2
dyn maximum (kN/m )

dyn minimum (kN/m )

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

50

100

150

200

Stiff clay

2
Firm clay

Soft clay

z (m)

z (m)

Stiff clay

Firm clay

10

10

12

12

Soft clay

Figure 5 Dynamic lateral earth pressure distribution for shallow crustal input motion with PBA 0.1 g,
basement depth 12 meters and baserock depth 30 meters.
2
dyn maximum (kN/m )

dyn minimum (kN/m )

-180

-130

-80

-30

100

150

200

250

50

Stiff clay

Stiff clay

Firm clay
4

Firm clay

z (m)

z (m)

Soft clay
6

10

10

12

12

Soft clay

Figure 6 Dynamic lateral earth pressure distribution for shallow crustal input motion with PBA 0.3 g,
basement depth 12 meters and baserock depth 30 meters.

3.3

Distribution of Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure on Basement Wall due to Effect of

Earthquake Mechanism and PBA Level Variation

This scheme of analyses is focused on earthquake characteristic by its mechanism and PBA level.
For this reason, the input motions used are subduction and shallow crustal earthquake with PBA
level 0.1g, 0.2g and 0.3g, while the basement depth and the baserock depth are 12 meters and 30
meters, respectively. The distribution of maximum dynamic lateral earth pressure is shown in
Figure 7.
From the figure, it can be seen that as the PBA level increases, the dynamic lateral earth pressure
increases for any soil type. It is found that for stiff clay, the maximum pressure occurred at the
base of the wall, while for firm clay it occurred at depth approximately 0.67H from the top and for
soft clay at 0.8H from the top. The subduction earthquake mechanism gives slightly greater
dynamic pressure than shallow crustal earthquake, especially in the case of stiff clay. From this
analysis, it is also found that the point of application of total dynamic force occurred at depth 0.650.67H from the top regardless of the PBA level and earthquake mechanism.

Back to Table of Contents

394

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008
2
dyn maximum (kN/m )

2
dyn maximum (kN/m )

50

100

150

200

50

150

20

40

60

Subduction 0.1 g
Subduction 0.1 g

Subduction 0.3 g

Subduction 0.3 g
SCF 0.1 g
4

SCF 0.2 g

SCF 0.2 g
SCF 0.3 g

z (m)

SCF 0.3 g

z (m)

SCF 0.3 g

SCF 0.2 g
6

Subduction 0.2 g

Subduction 0.3 g
SCF 0.1 g

SCF 0.1 g

10

10

10

12

12

12

(a)

(b)

Figure 7 Maximum dynamic lateral earth pressure distribution of basement wall embedded
at stiff clay (a) firm clay (b) and soft clay (c) for different mechanism of earthquake and PBA level.

3.4

Distribution of Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure on Basement Wall due to Effect of

Baserock Depth Variation

To analyze the effect of baserock depth, this scheme of analysis varies the baserock depth into
three depths, which are 30 meters, 40 meters and 50 meters. The input motion used is shallow
crustal earthquake with PBA 0.1g and the basement depth is 16 meters.
0

Maximum total lateral earth pressure

(kN/m 2)
100
200
300
400
500

Maximum total lateral earth pressure

2
(kN/m )
0

50

100

150

200

250

0
2

Baserock depth 30 m

Baserock depth 40 m

Baserock depth 40 m

Baserock depth 50 m

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Baserock depth 30 m

8
10

Baserock depth 50 m

6
8
10

12

12

14

14

16

16

(a)

(b)
Maximum total lateral earth pressure
(kN/m 2)
0
50
100
150
200
0
Baserock depth 30 m

Baserock depth 40 m

Baserock depth 50 m

6
Depth (m)

100

Subduction 0.1 g

Subduction 0.2 g

Subduction 0.2 g

80

z (m)

2
dyn maximum (kN/m )

100

8
10
12
14
16

(c)
Figure 8 Maximum dynamic lateral earth pressure distribution of stiff clay (a), firm clay (b) and soft clay (c)
with shallow crustal 0.1g input motion, basement depth 16 meters and variation of baserock depth.

Back to Table of Contents

395

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008

3.5

Distribution of Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure on Basement Wall due to Effect of

Basement Depth Variation

In this case, the basement depths are varied within range of 8 to 16 meters, the input motion used
is subduction earthquake with PBA 0.2g and baserock depth constant at 30 meters.
2

dyn maximum (kN/m )

0

50

100

150

dyn maximum (kN/m )

2

200

100

150

8m

8m

12 m

12 m

16 m

16 m

6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

50

10

10

12

12

14

14

16

16

(a)

(b)
2

dyn maximum (kN/m )

0

50

100

150

0
8m
2

12 m
16 m

Depth (m)

6
8
10
12
14
16

(c)
Figure 9 Maximum dynamic lateral earth pressure distribution of stiff clay (a), firm clay (b) and soft clay (c)
with subduction earthquake 0.2g input motion, baserock depth 30 meters and variation of basement depth.

Figure 9 shows that for each soil type, the variation of basement depth gives same typical shape of
distribution along the basement wall. For stiff and firm clay, the dynamic pressure reaches its
maximum at the base of the wall with nonlinear distribution, whereas the maximum pressure
gradient occurred between 0.85H-H from the top of the wall. In the case of soft clay, it gives
different behavior, in which the maximum value occurred at approximately 0.85H from the top
and decreases beyond that depth.
3.6

Recommendation of Normalized Maximum Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure

Recommendations for normalized distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure in the case of
basement depth 12 meters and baserock depth 30 meters are show in Figure 8. These
recommendations are based on the result of dynamic finite element simulation at various PBA
level.

Back to Table of Contents

396

International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008
(dyn/H) maximum
0

(dyn/ H) maximum
4

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.1g
Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.2g
Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.3g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.1g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.2g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.3g

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.1g
Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.2g
Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.3g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.1g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.2g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.3g

0.4

z/H

0.4

z/H

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.9

0.9

(a)

(b)
(dyn/ H) maximum
0

0
0.1
0.2
0.3

Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.1g
Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.2g
Dyn FE Simulation
w ith PBA 0.3g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.1g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.2g
Recommendation
for PBA 0.3g

z/H

0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

(c)
Figure 10 Recommendation for distribution of dynamic lateral earth pressure on basement wall
with depth 12 meters and baserock depth 30 meters on stiff clay (a), firm clay (b) and soft clay (c).

4.

CONCLUSION

From the result of analyses, it could be concluded that the local soil condition will affect the
movement behavior of basement wall whereas the maximum wall movement occurred at soft clay,
followed by firm and stiff clay. This movement will induce greater dynamic lateral increment and
decrement pressure at stiffer soil condition. The soil-structure interaction effect under lower level
of PBA, is more affected by soil mass factor, while at the higher level, is more affected by the soil
stiffness. As the PBA level of the earthquake increases, the dynamic lateral earth pressure
increment will increase, which is caused by the greater translation wall movement at higher
acceleration.
The narrow variation of baserock depth does not significantly give the difference on distribution of
dynamic lateral earth pressure. Under more extreme depth of baserock, such as 200-250 meters, it
may give a considerable increment in the magnitude of dynamic pressure, since the amplification
from the baserock to the soil surface will influence the dynamic load on basement structure. The
variation of basement depth does not influence the distribution shape of dynamic lateral earth
pressure, but affects the point of application of lateral earth force. Increasing the basement depth
will shift the point of application downward relative to overall height of the wall. In this case, for
basement depth 8 meters, the lateral force acts at approximately 0.7H, while for basement depth 16
meters, at 0.8H.

Back to Table of Contents

397

International
International
ConferenceConference
on Earthquake
Earthquake
on Earthquake
EngineeringEngineering
and Disaster
Disaster
and
Mitigation,
Disaster Mitigation
Jakarta, April
April
200814-15,
14-15, 2008
2008
International
Conference
on
Engineering
and
Mitigation,
Jakarta,

5.

REFERENCES

Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Vermeer, P.A., Bakker, K.J., Bonnier, P.G., Brand, P.J.W., Burd, H.J. and
Termaat, R.J. (2002). PLAXIS Dynamics 2D version 8: Finite Element Code for Soil and
Rock Analyses, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Cook, R.D. (1989). Concept and Applications of Finite Element Analysis (3rd edition), John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hashash, Y.M.A. and Park, D. (2002). Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion
propagation in nonlinear site response analysis, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
22(7), pp. 611-624.
Rayleigh, J.W.S. and Lindsay, R.B. (1945). The Theory of Sound, 1st American ed., Dover
Publications, New York.
Risk Engineering, Inc. (2004). EZFRISK, Software for In-depth Seismic Hazard Analysis,
Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Uniform Building Code (UBC) (1997). Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions,
International Conference of Building Officials.

Back to Table of Contents

398