ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic performance of three-dimensional frame structures with

underground stories
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar 
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper investigates the seismic performance of moment-resisting frame steel buildings with
Received 27 September 2008 multiple underground stories resting on shallow foundations. A parametric study that involved
Accepted 18 February 2009 evaluating the nonlinear seismic response of five, ten and fifteen story moment-resisting frame steel
buildings resting on flexible ground surface, and buildings having one, three and five underground
Keywords: stories was performed. The buildings were assumed to be founded on shallow foundations. Two site
Soil–structure interaction (SSI) conditions were considered: soil class C and soil class E, corresponding to firm and soft soil deposits,
Performance-based design (PBD) respectively. Vancouver seismic hazard has been considered for this study. Synthetic earthquake records
Seismic design of buildings compatible with Vancouver uniform hazard spectrum (UHS), as specified by the National Building Code
Underground stories
of Canada (NBCC) 2005, have been used as input motion. It was found that soil–structure interaction
Uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)
(SSI) can greatly affect the seismic performance of buildings in terms of the seismic storey shear and
Ground response analysis
moment demand, and the deformations of their structural components. Although most building codes
postulate that SSI effects generally decrease the force demand on buildings, but increase the
deformation demand, it was found that, for some of the cases considered, SSI effects increased both
the force and deformation demand on the buildings. The SSI effects generally depend on the stiffness of
the foundation and the number of underground stories. SSI effects are significant for soft soil conditions
and negligible for stiff soil conditions. It was also found that SSI effects are significant for buildings
resting on flexible ground surface with no underground stories, and gradually decrease with the
increase of the number of underground stories.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approach is common in practice, it might differ in details

The current state-of-practice for seismic design of buildings
with multiple underground stories involves approximate ap-
proaches that primarily differ according to the designer’s judg-
ment and experience. This is a consequence of lack of relevant
recommendations in building codes. Most building codes treat
low and medium rise regular buildings with multi-level under-
ground stories with the same recommendations used for build-
ings with surface foundations.
In general, buildings with multiple underground stories are
designed by cropping the superstructure and analyzing it as a
fixed base structure founded on the ground surface. On the other
hand, the substructure is designed for the seismic base shear and
moment demand resulting from the superstructure in addition to
the seismic earth pressure acting on the basement walls, due to
the oscillating mass of side soil. Even though this two step
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 4219; fax: +1 519 6613942.
E-mail addresses: helganai@uwo.ca (H. El Ganainy), helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca
(M.H. El Naggar).
depending on the procedure used in the seismic analysis of the
building.
It is important to incorporate the underground stories, base-
ment walls, foundation soil and side soil explicitly in the
mathematical model of the structure to be able to assess the
effect of the underground part of the building adequately on its
seismic performance. This is also essential since the current trend
of using performance-based design approaches in lieu of tradi-
tional force-based design approaches in the seismic design of
buildings dictate that soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis
becomes an integral part of methods used in the seismic
evaluation of buildings. Perhaps the most popular approach in
modeling the nonlinear response of the foundation soil and side
soil is the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF)
approach due to its merit of simplicity in defining the parameters
involved in the model.
The main objective of this paper is to better understand the
seismic performance of three-dimensional (3D) frame structures
with multiple underground stories. To achieve this objective,
nonlinear direct integration time–history analyses for 3D moment-
resisting frame steel structures with above-ground stories ranging

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.02.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1250 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
from five to fifteen stories, and underground stories ranging from
zero (i.e. no basement) to five underground stories were
performed. The nonlinear structural analysis program
Perform-3D [1] was chosen for this research since it is dedicated
mainly for the performance assessment of 3D structures in the
context of performance-based design (PBD). Its material library
contains a wide variety of structural components formulated
to account for both geometric and material nonlinearity in
structures.
Fig. 1. Plan of the repetitive story of the buildings.
Fig. 2. Lateral resisting system for a typical model building.
2. Description of model buildings
2.1. Description of model geometry and structural system
The models adopted herein are 4  5 bays moment-resisting
frame steel buildings, having a constant bay width of 7.2 m and
constant story height of 3.6 m. Fig. 1 shows the plan of the
repetitive story of the buildings. The lateral resisting system of the
building constituted four perimeter frames along the periphery of
the building where the girders were rigidly connected to the
columns, except where the girders were connected to the weak
side of the columns. Fig. 2 shows the layout of the lateral resisting
system of a typical model building. On the other hand, the inner
frames work mainly as the gravity load carrying system where
girders were pin-connected to the columns.
The parametric study involves evaluating the seismic perfor-
mance of five, ten and fifteen story buildings with three under-
ground stories. The buildings were assumed to be resting on
shallow foundations. To further explore the effect of the number
of underground stories on the seismic performance of buildings,
the ten story building was analyzed for zero (i.e. no basement),
one and five underground stories.
The thickness of the reinforced concrete basement walls was
assumed 0.25 m considering that they will resist the lateral earth
pressure only. Their reinforcement ratio was 0.25%, in accordance
with the specifications of FEMA 310 [2] document. Although they
were not designed to be part of the lateral resisting system of the
building, they were included in its structural model since they
should affect its seismic response due to their large mass and
in-plane bending stiffness.
On the other hand, the thickness of the slabs was taken as
0.25 m to be consistent with approximately 1/30 of the slab span
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1251

Table 1 Table 2
Unit weights and distributed loads used in defining the gravity loads acting on the Soil properties assigned for soil class C and soil class E.
buildings.
Soil class C Soil class E
Unit weights of materials (kN/m3)
Unit weight of steel 77 Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s) 560 150
Unit weight of concrete 25 Dry unit weight, gdry (kN/m3) 21.00 18.00
Angle of internal friction, f1 40 30
Wall–soil friction angle, d1 25 20
Equivalent uniformly distributed load (kPa) Material damping ratio, e 0.05 0.05
Nonstructural components 1.1 Poisson ratio, n 0.35 0.35
Live load 2.4

as specified by FEMA 310 [2] document. The slabs were Table 3

represented in the structural model of the building using its
weight in the gravity load case and as concentrated masses at the
center of gravity of each floor for the seismic analysis. In addition,
all the nodes lying in the plane of each floor were assigned a rigid
diaphragm constraint. However, the slabs were not modeled
explicitly and consequently their bending stiffness was neglected.
This is consistent with the assumption that the moment-resisting
frames form the lateral resisting system of the building.
2.2. Gravity loads
The gravity loads assigned to the buildings were the own
weight of structural components, including the steel girders and
columns and the reinforced concrete slabs and basement walls.
It also included the weight of the nonstructural components
(e.g. cladding, partitions, floor finishing, etc.) in addition to the
live load assigned to the slabs.
Since the slabs were not modeled explicitly, their weight and
the live load they carry were included in the structural model by
distributing its reaction on the supporting girders. Table 1 lists the
unit weights and distributed loads used in defining the gravity
loads acting on the buildings.
3. Materials strengths and moduli
3.1. Steel and concrete
The steel members of the building and the reinforcing steel of
the basement walls were assumed to be of the same grade. The
steel yield strength was taken as 482,633 kPa, with an elastic
modulus of 199,948 MPa. The steel hardens to 689,476 kPa at a
strain of 0.1, corresponding to a post-yield strain hardening ratio
of 1.1%. The steel Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0.3. The concrete of
0
the basement walls had f c ¼ 82,737 kPa, elastic modulus ¼ 37,232
MPa and Poisson’s ratio ¼ 0.25.
3.2. Foundation and side soil
Parameter used in calculating the seismic loads on the buildings using the NBCC
2005 equivalent static force procedure considering the Vancouver seismic zone.
Elastic design response spectrum parameters (g)
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) 0.5
Sa (0.2) 1.00
Sa (0.5) 0.68
Sa (1.0) 0.34
Sa (2.0) 0.18
Equivalent static force procedure parameters
Importance factor, IE 1.0
Higher mode factor, Mv 1.0
Ductility-related force modification factor, Rd 5.0
Overstrength-related force modification factor, Ro 1.5
4. Preliminary analysis of the buildings
The five, ten and fifteen story buildings were designed using
the structural analysis program ETABS [6] assuming fixed base
condition at the ground surface. This step provided preliminary
sections for the structural members of the buildings, which would
be augmented by the underground stories, foundation soil and
side soil for further seismic analysis. Although the column
sections should increase below the ground level in consideration
of the added gravity loads from the underground stories, they
were not changed since the seismic performance of the buildings
rather than its seismic design is the objective of this study.
The steel design feature included in ETABS was utilized to
perform the seismic design of the buildings. The seismic loads
were calculated using the equivalent static force procedure as
specified by the NBCC 2005 for a building in Vancouver. Table 3
lists the parameters used in calculating the seismic loads acting
on the buildings. The structural members of the buildings were
designed according to the loading cases and guidelines specified
by the NBCC 2005, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and
the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC). Table 4 lists
the preliminary sections for the girders and columns of the
buildings as obtained from the ETABS analysis and design stage.

The buildings site was assumed to have a 30-m-thick deposit of
homogeneous soil underlain by the bedrock. Therefore, the
average properties in the top 30 m were used for calculating the
foundation and side soil mechanical properties in accordance with
the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 2005 specifications.
Two scenarios were assumed for the soil deposit used in the
current study, namely: soil class C corresponding to ‘‘very dense
soil and soft rock’’; and soil class E corresponding to ‘‘soft soil’’ in
accordance with the site classification of the NBCC 2005. Table 2
lists the properties assigned for these two soil classes in the
current study from the ranges specified by NBCC 2005, Das [3,4]
and FEMA 356 [5] document.
5. Intended behavior and performance levels
The seismic performance of the model buildings was examined
with an emphasis on the effect of underground stories, foundation
soil and side soil on the building performance. To achieve this goal
the nonlinear structural analysis program Perform-3D [1] is used.
5.1. Intended behavior of structural components
The perimeter frames were considered the primary structural
component and comprise the lateral resisting system of the
buildings. Therefore, the perimeter frames are intended to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1252 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
experience inelastic behavior in flexure but to remain essentially
elastic in axial and shear deformations. The connection panel
zones between the girders and columns of the perimeter frames
are also considered primary structural components, as they affect
the performance level of the building, and are intended to
experience inelastic behavior in shear. However, the interior
girders and columns that comprise the gravity load carrying
system are intended to behave elastically in flexure, axial and
shear deformations, since they are considered secondary structur-
al components. These designations are in accordance with the
guidelines given by ASCE 41 [7] in classifying the structural
components of buildings in the context of the PBD principles.
The basement walls of the building contribute to its lateral
resistance because of their orientation within the structural
system. Therefore, they also can be considered as primary
structural components and hence are intended to experience
nonlinear behavior in in-plane bending. However, they should
remain essentially elastic in shear, since shear failure in reinforced
concrete is a brittle mode of failure. This renders inelastic shear
behavior in structural members an undesired target performance.
Finally, the slabs are intended to behave elastically and, as stated
before, were not included in the structural model.
To achieve these intended behaviors, the perimeter girders and
columns and the connection panel zones are modeled using
inelastic frame and connection panel zone elements, respectively.
They are assigned deformation-controlled force–deformation
actions in bending and shear, respectively, in accordance with
ASCE 41 [7] guidelines for structural steel components. The
interior girders and columns are assigned force-controlled
force–deformation actions in flexure, axial and shear deforma-
tions (i.e. the components’ strengths are assigned to the elastic
structural members without defining the associated plastic
deformations) as well as axial and shear modes of deformation
in perimeter girders and columns. The components’ strengths can
be calculated in accordance with the established principles of
mechanics (e.g. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
specifications for structural steel design considering a strength
reduction factor equals to unity). Perform-3D calculates the
components’ strength from the geometric properties of members’
cross section (e.g. section modulus) and the associated mechan-
ical properties of the cross section’s material (e.g. yield strength of
steel).
Table 4
Preliminary sections for girders and columns of the model buildings as obtained
from ETABS.
5 story building 10 story building 15 story building
Perimeter girders W 27  146 W 27  94 W 27  146
E–W interior girders W 18  106 W 18  97 W 18  106
N–S interior girders W 24  104 W 24  104 W 24  104
Perimeter columns W 14  90 W 14  145 W 14  233
Interior columns W 14  90 W 14  132 W 14  193
Table 5
Deformation capacities for inelastic structural components of buildings corresponding to IO, LS and CP performance levels.
Immediate occupancy
Plastic rotation angle (radians)
Perimeter girders 1yy
Perimeter columns 1yy
Angular plastic shear deformation (radians)
Connection panel zones 0.01–0.00015d
On the other hand, the basement walls are modeled using
inelastic fiber wall elements that could experience nonlinear
behavior in in-plane bending, including: concrete fibers cracking
and crushing; and steel fibers yielding. However, they were
assigned an elastic shear material to behave essentially elastic in
shear.
5.2. Definition of performance levels
To assess the performance of buildings, ASCE 41 [7] defines the
acceptance criteria of the structural components of the building in
terms of strength demand capacity ratios or deformation demand
capacity ratios, depending on the force–deformation actions of the
structural components whether they are force-controlled or
deformation-controlled, respectively.
Perform-3D automatically calculates the strength and defor-
mation demand on the structural components of the building
throughout the analysis steps. However, ASCE 41 [7] gives
deformation capacities for the inelastic components correspond-
ing to the three target performance levels for structural compo-
nents, namely: immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS)
and collapse prevention (CP). It defines the deformation
capacities as multiple of the yield deformations of the compo-
nents. Table 5 gives the deformation capacities of the inelastic
structural components encounter in the model buildings corre-
sponding to the IO, LS and CP performance levels and in
accordance with ASCE 41 [7] specifications. Deformation capa-
cities for perimeter girders and columns are expressed as multi-
ples of the chord rotation (yy) at yield. The deformation capacities
for the connection panel zones (assuming an improved
WUF-bolted web connection for the moment connections
between girders and columns) are expressed as functions of the
girders’ depth (d). It should be noted that these deformation
capacities are plastic rotations and angular shear deformations,
which dictates adding the yield deformations to them in order to
get the total deformation capacities.
ASCE 41 [7] specifies that the strength capacity of structural
components should be assigned different values corresponding to
the considered performance level. In the current study, compo-
nents that have force-controlled force–deformation actions are
required to remain elastic. Therefore, for the performance levels
IO, LS and CP, the strength capacities were taken equal to the
nominal capacities of the components.
To reduce the volume of analysis output results, Perform-3D
groups demand capacity ratios of similar components together to
distill the results down to few ‘‘Limit States’’ that can be easily
used in assessing the performance of buildings. Each limit state
groups similar demand capacity ratios (e.g. end rotation of
perimeter girders) at a certain performance level (e.g. LS
performance level). It then calculates the maximum demand
capacity ratio, within each time step, for all the components in the
limit state. Perform-3D defines this maximum demand capacity
ratio as the ‘‘Usage Ratio’’ of the limit state at this time step. The
Life safety Collapse prevention
6yy 8yy
6yy 8yy
0.0139–0.0002d 0.021–0.0003d
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
performance of the building can be thus assessed by ensuring that
the usage ratios of the target performance level of the components
have not exceeded unity throughout the seismic event.
6. Foundation system
The foundation system of the buildings comprises shallow
spread footings. For the ease of modeling, it was assumed that
they are square in plan, and concentric with the supported
columns. Two footing models were considered for each building:
one for the interior columns and one for the perimeter columns,
due to the substantial difference between the vertical load acting
on them. The strip footings beneath the basement walls and the
semelles and straps connecting the footings were neglected in this
study.
The side soil is assumed to be homogeneous throughout the
embedment depth of the building. It is assumed that it possesses
the same mechanical and physical properties of the foundation
soil.
The foundation and side soil were assumed to experience
nonlinear behavior under seismic shaking. Therefore, they were
modeled using the Beam-on-a-Nonlinear Winkler Foundation
approach that is capable of simulating the important aspects of
the nonlinear behavior of the foundation and side soil.
6.1. Shallow foundations
The model buildings encountered in this study involved a wide
range of footing vertical dead loads corresponding to different
scenarios considered. In addition, two soil classes were considered
in this study: soil class C corresponding to ‘‘very dense soil and
soft rock’’ and soil class E corresponding to ‘‘soft soil’’. This wide
range of variable parameters makes the task of sizing the footings
cumbersome. Using a constant value for the vertical bearing
capacity safety factor would result in a wide range of footing plan
dimensions, and consequently different foundations’ bearing
capacities and stiffness. This would complicate the comparison
of the seismic performance of consistent buildings (e.g. ten story
buildings with zero, one, three and five underground stories).
Therefore, a variable vertical bearing capacity safety factor was
used when sizing the foundations, since it is neither the seismic
design of the footings that is being investigated in this research
nor the evaluation of the code recommendations for the seismic
design of shallow foundations is to be done.
For each soil class, two model footings were used: perimeter
columns footings and interior columns footings. These footings
were sized so that the vertical bearing capacity safety factor
ranged from 7.0 for five story buildings to 2.0 for fifteen story
buildings. The bearing capacities of the foundations are calculated
using Terzaghi’s standard bearing capacity formula for square
footings. The soil passive resistance along the front face of the
footing is taken according to the presumptive values recom-
mended by FEMA 356 [5] document for different soil types.
However, the side friction along the footing side–soil interface is
neglected.
The vertical and horizontal elastic stiffness of the foundations
is calculated using the frequency-independent formulas given
by FEMA 356 [5] document. To account for the cyclic nature
of the seismic load on the footings, the unload–reload stiffness of
the footing was used in lieu of the initial elastic stiffness.
Allotey and El Naggar [8] recommend using an effective shear
modulus of 0.8 of the elastic shear modulus of the soil in
calculating the vertical stiffness of the foundation. Therefore,
the elastic shear modulus, Go, of the soil was calculated from
its shear wave velocity and mass density, then an effective
1253
Table 6
Shallow foundations’ properties used with the model buildings.
Soil class C Soil class E
Perimeter footings
Plan dimensions (m) 1.7  1.7 3.1  3.1
Depth of foundation (m) 1.5 2.0
Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kPa) 4206.63 1235.54
Soil passive resistance along footing front face (kPa) 20.00 15.00
Foundation vertical stiffness, kv (kN/m3) 18,48,932.57 57,725.55
Foundation horizontal stiffness, KH (kN/m) 7,255,630.5 6,99,894.48
Interior footings
Plan dimensions (m) 2.1  2.1 4.0  4.0
Depth of foundation (m) 1.5 2.0
Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kPa) 4594.07 1359.5
Soil passive resistance along footing front face (kPa) 20.00 15.00
Foundation vertical stiffness, kv (kN/m3) 13,99,578.64 41,870.41
Foundation horizontal stiffness, KH (kN/m) 8,015,932.36 801,808.65
shear modulus, G ¼ 0.8Go, was used in calculating the
vertical and horizontal stiffness of the footings. Table 6 lists
the shallow foundations’ properties used with the model
buildings.
El Ganainy [9] has shown that based on the BNWF approach,
the cyclic rocking, vertical and horizontal responses of shallow
foundations can be modeled effectively using an assemblage of a
curvature hinge (or a moment–rotation hinge), shear hinge
connected in series with an elastic frame member attached to
the bottom end of ground story columns. El Ganainy [9] has
derived three bounding surfaces to couple the responses of these
hinges to be able to model the complete 3D response of shallow
foundations. To account for the ‘‘Soil Squeeze Out’’ phenomenon
[9] observed in the cyclic rocking response of shallow foundation,
El Ganainy [9] has shown that assigning an appropriate energy
degradation factor to the curvature hinge would result in
adjusting the material damping from the cyclic moment–rotation
response of the footings and yield hysteretic moment–rotation
loops consistent with the S-shape loops observed from experi-
mental results.
This modeling approach was adopted herein in modeling the
shallow foundations of the model buildings encounter in this
study. Bilinear approximations for the moment–rotation relation
and the horizontal force–shear displacement relation were
assigned to the curvature and shear hinges, respectively [9].
The geometric and mechanical properties of the curvature hinge,
shear hinge and the elastic frame member were calculated,
utilizing the mechanical properties of the specified soil classes,
using the procedure outlined in El Ganainy [9].
To account for the soil squeeze out phenomenon, energy
degradation factors were assigned to the curvature hinges at
0.55 and 0.8 for soil classes C and E, respectively. These values
provided good fit with the experimental results obtained from
TRISEE experiment for the high density (HD) and low density (LD)
tests, respectively [9], noting that soil classes C and E are
approximately consistent with the relative densities of 85% and
45% of the HD and LD tests [9]. Hence, the corresponding energy
degradation factors values were used herein.
A P–MB–ML bounding surface was assigned for the curvature
hinge to account for the interaction between the vertical and
rocking responses of the footing [9]. El-Tawil and Deierlein’s
bounding surface [10,11], which is built-in Perform-3D, was used
in this regard. The fitting exponent m that controls the shape of
the P–M bounding surface was assigned a value of 2 and the
exponent n that controls the shape of the bounding surface in the
MB–ML plane was assigned a value of 1.8 [9].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1254 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
A VB–VL bounding surface was assigned for the shear hinge to
account for the interaction between the horizontal responses
of the footing along its width and length. The elliptical equation of
this bounding surface is built-in Perform-3D and was used in this
regard [9]. Finally, the radiation damping through the foundation
soil was neglected. This is considered an acceptable approxima-
tion, since the hysteretic damping is more important in the case of
seismic loading.
6.2. Side soil
The effect of side soil on the seismic performance of buildings
with underground stories can be grouped into three aspects:
(1) Side soil serves as a flexible support to the building in lateral
deformation. In the static case, it acts on the basement walls
with a lateral pressure corresponding to the active earth
pressure. Under seismic shaking, as the building oscillates
back and forth towards and away from the side soil, it
responds like horizontal elastic springs. As the intensity of the
seismic shaking increases, the side soil could experience a
nonlinear behavior, in which it cannot provide a lateral
pressure on the basement walls more than its passive
resistance, Pp, while the building is swaying towards the
backfill. Also, it cannot provide a lateral pressure less than its
active resistance, Pa, while the building is swaying away from
the backfill. In some types of soils, especially cohesive soil,
gapping could occur between the basement walls and the
backfill as a result of the building oscillation. In this case, the
lateral pressure of the backfill on the basement walls drops to
zero. This nonlinear behavior can result in hysteretic for-
ce–deformation actions in the side soil where the resulting
hysteretic damping provides an additional source for dissipat-
ing the earthquake energy. Fig. 3 shows the backbone curve
for the hysteretic lateral pressure–lateral deflection relation of
the side soil.
(2) Under severe seismic shaking, where the backfill experiences
nonlinear response, the wedge of the soil behind the base-
ment walls could fail and begin oscillating with the building,
either in-phase or out-of-phase. This oscillating mass of soil
could affect the seismic response of the building by altering its
effective oscillating mass. However, this oscillating soil mass
could be neglected in comparison to the mass of the structural
components and basement walls of the building, without
affecting the seismic response of the building significantly.
(3) Side soil dissipates the earthquake energy through radiation
damping. This additional damping can affect the seismic
response of the building, since it increases its effective
damping ratio. However, this effect would be most significant
for stiff structures, such as shear wall and braced frame
Fig. 3. Backbone curve of the hysteretic lateral pressure–lateral deflection relation for the side soil.
structures. For flexible structures, such as moment-resisting
frame structures, the effect of the radiation damping would be
minimal and can be neglected.
In the current study, the elastic stiffness and nonlinear behavior
of side soil were modeled. However, the oscillating mass of the
side soil and the radiation damping effects were neglected.
Currently, there are no nonlinear bar elements in Perform-3D
capable of modeling the nonlinear backbone curve of the side soil
as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, approximating assumptions were
introduced in order to make use of the available nonlinear bar
elements in Perform-3D to model the nonlinear response of the
side soil adequately.
The approximation done herein can be better understood if the
lateral pressure–lateral deflection relation of the side soil is
represented into two distinct parts as follows (with reference to
Fig. 4):
(1) Under static loading condition, the side soil acts on the
basement walls with a static pressure corresponding to the
active earth pressure.
(2) As the building oscillates, the side soil acts like horizontal
nonlinear springs, where their ultimate compression capa-
cities are PpPa. However, they possess no tension capacity.
It should be noted that the soil considered in this study is
cohesionless and should not experience gapping (i.e. the mini-
mum earth pressure cannot drop below the active value). Thus,
this approach is considered to be adequate in representing the
backbone curve for the lateral pressure–lateral deflection relation
of the side soil.
Briaud and Kim [12] have recommended a set of static Py
curves for sand and clay to be used within a beam–column
method for the design of tieback walls. They validated the curves
by comparing their predictions with the measured behavior of
four-full scale tieback walls in sand and in clay. The Py curves
recommended by Briaud and Kim [12] for sand are used herein in
modeling the backbone curve of the hysteretic lateral pressur-
e–lateral deflection relation of the side soil.
The active, Pa, and passive, Pp, earth pressures and the
corresponding wall deflections ya and ya, respectively, are
calculated for sand as follows:
Pa ¼ K a gZ cosðdÞ (1)
Pp ¼ K p gZ cosðdÞ (2)
ya ¼ 1:3 mm (3)
yp ¼ 13 mm (4)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
Fig. 4. Approximate representation of the lateral pressure–lateral deflection relation for the side soil.
where
2
cos ðfÞ
Ka ¼ h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i2
cosðdÞ 1 þ sinðf þ dÞ sinðfÞ= cosðdÞ
cos2 ðfÞ
Kp ¼ h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i2
cosðdÞ 1  sinðf þ dÞ sinðfÞ= cosðdÞ
g is the unit weight of the soil, Z is the depth at which the lateral
earth pressure is calculated, f is the angle of internal friction of
the soil, and d is the wall–soil friction angle.
Using Eqs. (1)–(4) and the soil properties for site class C and
site class E listed in Table 2, the backbone curves for the hysteretic
lateral pressure–lateral deflection relation of the side soil were
calculated at selected depths.
The backbone curve for the side soil can be adequately
modeled using the horizontal nonlinear springs and static active
earth pressure distributed over the basement walls’ area. Thus,
nonlinear inelastic horizontal bar elements distributed horizon-
tally and vertically over the surface area of the basement walls
were used to model the nonlinear behavior of the side soil. The
bar elements were equally spaced vertically at 1.2 m and
horizontally at 7.2 m (i.e. the bar elements were distributed along
the underground perimeter columns, so that one bar is located at
each story level and two intermediate bars are equally spaced
within each story). The backbone curve for each bar element was
calculated using its corresponding depth. The minimum active
earth pressure acting on the basement walls was represented by
static concentrated loads acting at the bar elements’ locations.
These loads were calculated as the value of the active earth
pressure at the bar level multiplied by the horizontal and vertical
spacing of the bar elements.
7. Earthquake loads
The model buildings are assumed to be located in the
Vancouver area. Thus, earthquake records compatible with the
1255
design response spectrum of the Vancouver area, specified by the
NBCC 2005, were used.
7.1. Uniform hazard spectra (UHS) and compatible
earthquake records
The NBCC 2005 has introduced uniform hazard spectra that
have a constant probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years as a
function of spectral period. These spectra are based on a
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for different zones across
Canada [13]. The UHS eliminate the need to use standard spectral
shapes scaled to the peak ground acceleration, thus providing a
more site-specific description of the earthquake spectrum and
ensuring a uniform hazard level to be achieved for all spectral
periods [13].
The UHS can be considered as a composite of all earthquake
events that contribute most strongly to the hazard at the specified
probability level. In general, the dominant contributor to the
short-period ground-motion hazard comes from small-to-moder-
ate earthquakes at close distances, whereas larger earthquakes at
greater distance contribute most strongly to the long-period
ground-motion hazard [14].
The artificial ground-motion time histories compatible
with the 2% in 50 year UHS of the NBCC 2005 for the
Vancouver area suggested by Atkinson and Beresnev [14] were
used as input motion. They proposed an event of M6.5 at a
distance of 30 km to represent the short-period hazard and an
event of M7.2 at a distance of 70 km to represent the long-period
hazard. In addition, an earthquake of M8.5 for the Cascadia event
scaled by a factor of 2.2 is used to simulate a great earthquake on
the Cascadia subduction zone. Therefore, three earthquake
records are required to cover the entire hazard represented by
the NBCC 2005 UHS for the Vancouver area. Figs. 5–7 show the
three artificial acceleration records used in the dynamic analysis
of the buildings. Each building was analyzed for each of these
three records.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1256 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

Fig. 5. Acceleration record for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.

Fig. 6. Acceleration record for M7.2 at a distance of 70 km event.

Fig. 7. Acceleration record for M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2.

7.2. Ground response analysis
The UHS given by the NBCC 2005 are defined with reference to
site class C that is defined as ‘‘very dense soil and soft rock’’. Thus,
the compatible records can be considered bedrock motions.
In general, the characteristics of the bedrock motion can be
amplified or attenuated while propagating from the bedrock
towards the ground surface. This alteration depends mainly on the
frequency content of the bedrock motion and the properties of the
soil deposit. Firm soil deposits, such as site class C, will probably
not alter the characteristics of the bedrock motion since they can
be considered part of the bedrock. Therefore, all buildings founded
on site class C can be analyzed for the bedrock motions shown in
Figs. 5–7, whether they are surface building or have multiple
underground stories.
On the other hand, a soft soil deposit as site class E would
probably alter the characteristics of the bedrock motion, by
amplification or attenuation. Thus, the ground motions shown in
Figs. 5–7 were propagated within a 30-m-thick deposit of soil site
class E (Table 2), performing nonlinear free-field site response
analyses using the one-dimensional (1D) site response analysis
program DEEPSOIL [15]. The G/Gmax modulus reduction curve and
the equivalent damping ratio versus shear strain relationship for
sand given by Seed and Idriss [16] were assigned to the soil
deposit [17].
Three ground response analyses were conducted, one for each
of the three ground motions as input bedrock motion and the
response of the soil deposit was evaluated. The ground motion
was calculated at four foundation levels corresponding to
buildings having five, three and one underground stories and
at the ground surface for buildings with surface foundations.
Figs. 8–10 show the results of the ground response analyses in
terms of the acceleration time histories of the three bedrock
motions at the considered foundation levels. In general, the
results show attenuation for the three bedrock motions, which is
most pronounced for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.
8. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed to assess the
seismic performance of the model buildings. A series of nonlinear
direct integration time–history analyses were conducted using the
nonlinear structural analysis software Perform-3D [1].
The seismic responses of five, ten and fifteen story buildings
with underground stories ranging from zero (i.e. founded on the
ground surface) to five underground stories were investigated.
The response of the buildings was evaluated in terms of: (1) the
magnitudes and distribution of the envelope of the story shear
and moment demand on the buildings throughout each seismic
event; (2) the maximum usage ratio of the limit states defining
the performance level of the primary structural components of
the building. The performance of the following structural
components has been investigated: (1) perimeter columns’ end
rotation; (2) perimeter girders’ end rotation; (3) connection panel
zones’ shear deformation, in terms of three performance levels,
namely: immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse prevention,
as specified by the ASCE 41 [7] standard.
8.1. Nonlinear direct integration time–history analysis
Perform-3D utilizes step-by-step integration through time
using the constant average acceleration (CAA) method (also
known as the trapezoidal rule or the Newmark b ¼ 14 method) to
calculate the seismic response of buildings.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1257

Fig. 8. Ground response analysis results for M6.5 at a distance of 30 km event.

Fig. 9. Ground response analysis results for M7.2 at a distance of 70 km event.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1258 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
Fig. 10. Ground response analysis results for M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor of 2.2.
The input ground motions resulting from the ground response
analyses and the corresponding bedrock motions were used in
the analysis of the buildings. The earthquake direction was set
to the W–E direction for all buildings. The ground motions were
given in 0.01 s time steps. Therefore, the integration time step for
the analysis was taken 0.01 s in order to accurately capture the
input ground motions. Also, it is sufficiently small to capture
the structure response, since it is considerably smaller than
1
the recommended practical value of 12 of the structure period [18]
that ranges around 3.0 s for all model buildings encountered in
this study.
There are two sources of damping in nonlinear structures: (1)
for a structure that is essentially elastic, the earthquake energy is
dissipated through viscous damping; (2) after the structure yields,
hysteretic damping resulting from the inelastic behavior of the
structural components would add to the total dissipated energy.
Modeling the structural elements of the building using inelastic
components inherently accounts for this source of damping [18].
To simulate viscous damping in buildings, either the modal
damping or Rayleigh damping can be used.
Rayleigh damping calculates the damping matrix of the
structure using a combination of the mass matrix and the initial
elastic stiffness matrix of the structure, multiplied by scaling
factors, a and b, for the mass and stiffness matrices, respectively.
The Rayleigh damping is widely used in linear structural analysis.
However, it can lead to unrealistic large damping values in
nonlinear analysis. The Rayleigh damping matrix is calculated
once at the beginning of the analysis using the initial elastic
stiffness matrix of the structure and is used throughout the
analysis. However, as the intensity of the seismic shaking
increases and the structure experiences nonlinear behavior in
the form of plastic hinging, the structure would soften and its
stiffness would decrease and become much less than the elastic
value used initially in calculating the damping matrix. Hence, the
Rayleigh damping could overestimate the viscous damping in
nonlinear structures [18]. Using the modal damping could
alleviate this defect.
In the modal damping approach, the damping matrix is
calculated for linear analysis using the elastic mode shapes and
periods of the structure utilizing the specified damping ratio. This
damping matrix is kept constant throughout the analysis steps.
For nonlinear analysis, the deformed shape for the nonlinear
structure generally contains contributions from the elastic mode
shapes. However, the effective periods of vibration for these
shapes are not the linear periods. Consequently, the mode shapes
are still damped, but since the effective period may have changed
after yielding of structural components (probably increased)
while the damping matrix is unchanged, the amount of damping,
expressed as a proportion of critical damping, generally changes
[18]. A shortcoming of using modal damping in nonlinear analysis
is that only the calculated elastic mode shapes are damped.
However, the higher modes are undamped.
To provide reasonable damping values, avoiding the pitfalls of
both methods, a combination of modal damping and a small value
of the Beta-K Rayleigh damping (with no Alpha-M damping) could
be used. This is to insure that the Beta-K part will serve in
damping the higher modes of vibration, and the modal damping
serves in damping the lower modes (i.e. elastic modes). For the
current study, the damping ratio was assigned to the model
buildings as a combination of 3% modal damping in addition to
0.1% Beta-K Rayleigh damping, and six modes of vibration were
calculated for the buildings.
The analyses involved a gravity load case followed by a series
of independent dynamic analyses, each having the gravity load
case as the preceding case. The self weight of the structure and the
active earth pressure acting on the basement walls were applied
in the gravity load case. The p–d effects were considered for all the
vertical components of the building. The elastic frame members
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261 1259

used within the assemblage utilized in modeling the shallow

foundations’ response were not assigned p–d effects to eliminate
any additional artificial moments on the footings that could result
from the self weight of the structure.

9. Results and discussion

Because of the extensive amount of results obtained from the

parametric study, only some representative results are presented
here. The complete set of results can be found in El Ganainy [9].
The results are presented in the form of graphs comparing
response quantities for each of the five, ten and fifteen story
buildings with these conditions: fixed base, flexible foundation
(i.e. zero underground stories) and having one, three or five
underground stories. The response quantities presented include:
(1) the envelope of the story shear and moment demand on the
buildings throughout the earthquake events; (2) the maximum
usage ratio of the limit states defining the performance level of
the structural components of the building.

9.1. Story shear and moment demand

Figs. 11 and 12 show the envelope of story shear demand on

Fig. 12. Story shear demand on five story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event scaled
five story buildings for the M8.5 Cascadia event scaled by a factor by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).
of 2.2 for soil classes C and E, respectively, while Figs. 13 and 14
show the envelope of moment demand for the same conditions.
The figures show that the SSI decreased the base shear and
moment demands on buildings founded on stiff soil, but increased
the base story shear and moment demand on buildings founded
on soft soil conditions. For example, it increased by about 10–25%
of the fixed base buildings values for buildings founded on soil
class E. This shows that the common assumption that SSI has a
favorable effect by decreasing the seismic forces postulated by
almost all the design code does not always hold. The figures also
show that the behavior of buildings with underground stories is
closer to that of fixed base, i.e., as the number of underground
stories increased, the SSI effects decreased. This could be
attributed to the rigidity of the basement walls together with
the rigid diaphragm action of the underground stories’ slabs

Fig. 13. Story moment demand on five story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event
scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C).

rendering the embedded part of the building essentially a rigid

box, hence fixing the structure. These fixing effects would
probably increase with the number of the underground stories.
The results for the 10 and 15 story buildings (found in El Ganainy
[9]) show that the SSI effects are less pronounced for buildings
with longer period.
Inspecting the whole set of graphs for the envelope of story
shear and moment demand on the buildings found in El Ganainy
[9], the following observations are made:

Fig. 11. Story shear demand on five story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event scaled (1) For buildings with underground stories or flexible foundations
by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C). founded on soil class C, the envelope of the story shear and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1260 H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261

Fig. 15. Usage ratio of limit states for five story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event
scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class C).
Fig. 14. Story moment demand on five story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event
scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).

moment demand almost has not changed, either in magnitude

or in shape of distribution, compared to the fixed base
buildings case. The minimal SSI effect in this case is attributed
to the high soil stiffness and hence minimal change in the
dynamic characteristics of the soil–structure system.
(2) The effects of the SSI on the seismic loads are pronounced for
buildings founded on soil class E for all seismic events
considered. The envelopes of story shear and moment demand
for buildings with underground stories or flexible foundations
have changed in magnitude compared to the case of buildings
with fixed base condition. The magnitudes of base shear and
moment have mostly increased, especially at the base where
the increase generally ranged from about 10% to 25% of the
fixed base values.

9.2. Usage ratio of the limit states

Figs. 15 and 16 show the maximum usage ratio of the limit

states for five story buildings for the M8.5 Cascadia event scaled
by a factor of 2.2 for soil classes C and E, respectively. Fig. 15 shows
that for soil class C, the deformations of the structural compo-
nents of buildings with flexible foundations or underground
stories are slightly different from those of buildings with fixed
base conditions. On the other hand, Fig. 16 shows that for the soil
class E, the deformations of the structural components of
buildings with flexible foundations or underground stories are
substantially different (larger) from those of buildings with fixed
base conditions. However, as the number of underground stories
increased, the deformation of the structural components gradu-
ally decreased approaching the fixed buildings values. Similar
observations can be made from the rest of figures found in El
Ganainy [9], for ten and fifteen story buildings and different
seismic events. In general, the SSI effects are less pronounced as
the period of the building increased. Comparing the deformations
of the structural components of buildings founded on soil class E
to that of the corresponding buildings founded on soil class C, it is
noted that the deformation level generally increases for the soil
class E case. The increase ranges from about 50% to about 300%
Fig. 16. Usage ratio of limit states for five story buildings—M8.5 Cascadia event
scaled by a factor of 2.2 (soil class E).
especially for the connection panel zones’ shear deformations
performance levels. This observation clearly demonstrates that SSI
effects on the seismic performance of buildings increase as the
soil stiffness decreases.
10. Summary and conclusions
The seismic performance of buildings with multiple under-
ground stories was investigated. Five, ten and fifteen story 3D
moment-resisting frame steel buildings with underground stories
ranging from zero to five underground stories have been
examined. The buildings were assumed to be founded on shallow
foundations. Two site conditions were considered: soil class C and
soil class E, corresponding to firm and soft soil deposits,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. El Ganainy, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1249–1261
respectively. Vancouver seismic area has been considered for this
study. Synthetic earthquake records compatible with the Vancou-
ver UHS, as specified by the NBCC 2005, have been used as input
motion. For buildings founded on site class C, the bedrock motions
have been utilized in the seismic analyses of the buildings.
However, for buildings founded on site class E, ground response
analyses have been performed to evaluate the characteristics of
the ground motion within the soil profile at each of the desired
foundation levels for the considered buildings.
The building foundations were modeled using an assemblage
of a curvature hinge, shear hinge connected in series with an
elastic frame member attached to the bottom end of the ground
story columns. El Ganainy [9] has shown that this approach can be
used in modeling the 3D cyclic rocking, vertical and horizontal
responses of shallow foundations effectively. The behavior of the
side soil has been modeled using an approximate method:
nonlinear bar elements were used to model its flexibility and
ultimate horizontal capacity and static earth pressure was applied
to the basement walls in order to simulate the effect of the initial
active earth pressure prior to the seismic event.
The dynamic analysis was conducted using the nonlinear
structural analysis software Perform-3D. The results indicate that
the SSI can considerably affect the seismic response of surface
buildings as well as buildings with underground stories founded
on soft soil conditions. In general, the results showed that SSI
effects are important for buildings founded on soft ground
conditions. However, for firm ground conditions its effects can
be neglected.
The results showed that the SSI effects increased the base shear
and moment demand on buildings founded on soft soil. This is
contrary to the common assumption that SSI effect on seismic
forces is always favorable, postulated by almost all the design
codes. It is clearly demonstrated that the base shear and moment
demand on short-period buildings could increase by up to 25% of
the fixed base buildings values.
The deformations of the structural components of the build-
ings have also been affected by the SSI. The deformations of
buildings with flexible bases have shown a considerable increase
that ranged from 50% to about 300% compared to the fixed base
1261
case for buildings founded on soil class E. This would in turn
increase the lateral deflection of the whole building. Thus, SSI can
have a detrimental effect on the performance of buildings.
References
[1] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). Perform-3D—A computer program for
nonlinear analysis and performance assessment of 3D structures. 2007: 4.0.3.
[2] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 310-handbook for the
seismic evaluation of buildings: a prestandard. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency; 1998.
[3] Das BM. Principles of foundation engineering. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Thomson; 2007.
[4] Das BM. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
Cole; 1999.
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). FEMA 356—Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC:
Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[6] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). ETABS—an integrated building design
software; 2008 9.2.0.
[7] American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 41—seismic rehabilitation of
existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2006; ASCE/SEI 41-06.
[8] Allotey N, El Naggar MH. Analytical moment–rotation curves for rigid
foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2003;23:367–81.
[9] El Ganainy HM. Seismic performance of buildings with multiple underground
stories. M.E.Sc. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
2008.
[10] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonlinear analysis of mixed steel–concrete frames. I:
element formulation. J Struct Eng 2001;127:647–55.
[11] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Nonlinear analysis of mixed steel–concrete frames.
II: implementation and verification. J Struct Eng 2001;127:656–65.
[12] Briaud J, Kim N. Beam–column method for tieback walls. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 1998;124:67–79.
[13] Adams J, Atkinson G. Development of seismic hazard maps for the proposed
2005 edition of the national building code of Canada. Can J Civ Eng 2003;30:
255–71.
[14] Atkinson GM, Beresnev IA. Compatible ground-motion time histories for new
national seismic hazard maps. Can J Civ Eng 1998;25:305–18.
[15] Hashash Y, Park D, Tsai CC. DEEPSOIL—a computer program for one-
dimensional site response analysis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign; 2005: 2.6.
[16] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response
analysis. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California; 1970: UCB/EERC-70/10.
[17] Hashash Y, Park D, Tsai CC. DEEPSOIL—tutorial and user manual. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2005; 2.6.
[18] Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI). Perform-3D—user manuals. 2007: 4.0.3.