Soil-Structure Interaction-Based Comparative Analysis of Footing Types for Tall Reinforced Concrete Buildings: A Comprehensive Review of Winkler Spring Models, Seismic Performance, and Foundation Design Optimisation

References

[1] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 1904: 1986 - Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Foundations in Soils, BIS, New Delhi, India, 1986.

[2] K. R. Arora, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 7th ed. New Delhi, India: Standard Publishers Distributors, 2009.

[3] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 456: 2000 - Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice, 4th Rev., BIS, New Delhi, India, 2000.

[4] J. P. Wolf, Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985.

[5] A. K. Chopra and R. K. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 561-582, 2002. doi: 10.1002/eqe.144

[6] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 2950 (Part I): 1981 - Design and Construction of Raft Foundations, BIS, New Delhi, India, 1981.

[7] S. M. Springman and J. Laue, Centrifuge modelling of foundations, in ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 1, J. Burland et al., Eds. London, UK: ICE Publishing, 2012, pp. 229-246.

[8] O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor, The Finite Element Method, 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.

[9] Bentley Systems Inc., STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition Technical Reference Manual, Bentley Systems, Exton, PA, USA, 2022.

[10] G. Gazetas, Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations, J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol. 117, no. 9, pp. 1363-1381, 1991. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:9(1363)

[11] G. Mylonakis and G. Gazetas, Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental?, J. Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 277-301, 2000. doi: 10.1080/13632460009350372

[12] J. P. Stewart, G. L. Fenves, and R. B. Seed, Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I: Analytical methods, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 26-37, 1999. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:1(26)

[13] G. G. Meyerhof, Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying clay, Canadian Geotechnical J., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 223-229, 1974. doi: 10.1139/t74-018

[14] H. A. Taiebat and J. P. Carter, Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations on undrained clay subjected to eccentric loads, Geotechnique, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 61-64, 2002. doi: 10.1680/geot.2002.52.1.61

[15] R. Rinaldi, M. Abdel-Rahman, and A. Hanna, Experimental investigation on shell footing models, Int. J. Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45-56, 2003.

[16] T. G. Sitharam and S. Sireesh, Comparative study on bearing capacity of an embedded circular footing, Indian J. Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 45-53, 2004.

[17] S. R. Pathak, S. N. Kamat, and D. R. Phatak, Study of behaviour of square and rectangular footings on cohesive soils, Proc. Int. Conf. Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Rolla, MO, 2008.

[18] H. M. Algin, Practical formula for dimensioning a rectangular footing, Engineering Structures, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1128-1134, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.017

[19] D. S. Patil and A. S. Chander, Cost effectiveness of several types of foundation, Int. J. Advance Research in Science Management and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2016.

[20] B. R. Harshitha and D. Vasudev, Analysis of RC frame structure with and without steel bracing using ETABS, Int. Research J. Engineering and Technology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 1062-1068, 2018.

[21] G. Z. Tsige and A. Zekaria, Seismic performance of RC buildings with masonry infill walls, American J. Civil Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 24-33, 2018. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.20180601.14

[22] S. Kumar and A. K. Gupta, Seismic analysis of RC frame structures in different zones of India using STAAD.Pro, Int. J. Engineering Research and Applications, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 46-50, 2015.

[23] T. P. Nguyen, V. D. Nguyen, and D. T. Bui, Machine learning-based prediction of bearing capacity for shallow foundations with different plan shapes, Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 12, Art. no. 5538, 2021. doi: 10.3390/app11125538

[24] A. K. Sreerama and P. K. Ramancharla, Seismic vulnerability assessment of pre-1980 RC buildings in India considering SSI effects, Natural Hazards, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 765-792, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s11069-021-04971-4

[25] M. Hjiaj and A. Makrodimopoulos, Upper and lower bounds for the bearing capacity of non-rectangular footings under combined V-H-M loading, Int. J. Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 301-325, 2022. doi: 10.1002/nag.3305

[26] R. K. Sahu, A. K. Choudhary, and A. K. Jha, Seismic response of irregular RC buildings with different footing configurations incorporating SSI, J. Structural Engineering (SERC), vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 45-56, 2022.

[27] N. Arora and S. Bansal, Parametric FEM study of different footing geometries using STAAD.Pro: bearing pressure, settlement, and cost, Int. J. Civil Engineering and Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 78-92, 2023.

[28] D. Gautam, R. Adhikari, and G. Rupakhety, Seismic fragility of RC buildings including foundation failures, Engineering Structures, vol. 288, Art. no. 116138, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116138

[29] G. D. Dhadse, G. D. Ramtekkar, and G. Bhatt, FEM modelling of soil structure interaction with interface element: a review, Structures, vol. 34, pp. 3505-3521, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.026

[30] Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department (MPPWD), Schedule of Rates for Civil Works, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, India, 2014.

[31] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 1893 (Part I): 2016 - Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, 6th Rev., BIS, New Delhi, India, 2016.

[32] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 875 (Part I): 1987 - Dead Loads; (Part II): 1987 - Imposed Loads; (Part V): 1987 - Special Loads and Load Combinations, BIS, New Delhi, India.

@article{1719784,
      author = {Yashika Jain, Dr. Rahul Kumar Satbhaiya},
      title = {Soil-Structure Interaction-Based Comparative Analysis of Footing Types for Tall Reinforced Concrete Buildings: A Comprehensive Review of Winkler Spring Models, Seismic Performance, and Foundation Design Optimisation},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {1},
      pages = {1239-1251},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1719784.pdf},
      abstract = {The seismic design of tall reinforced concrete (RC) buildings requires explicit consideration of soil-structure interaction (SSI), which governs the dynamic characteristics, load distribution, and settlement behaviour of the foundation system. Conventional design practice frequently neglects SSI through the rigid-base assumption, potentially yielding unconservative estimates of footing demand. The plan geometry of isolated footings directly controls the SSI interface stiffness, contact pressure distribution, and Winkler spring response under combined gravity and seismic loading. This review synthesises four decades of theoretical, experimental, and computational research on SSI-based footing behaviour for tall buildings, with particular focus on the comparative performance of rectangular, square, oval, and elliptical isolated footings. To consolidate and critically evaluate published research on SSI modelling approaches for shallow foundations; to review comparative FEM-based studies of footing geometry effects on SSI-mediated structural response using STAAD.Pro and equivalent platforms; and to identify the most SSI-compatible footing geometry for tall RC buildings under Indian seismic conditions, with respect to shear force, axial force, support reaction uniformity, deflection, and construction cost. Oval and elliptical isolated footings consistently exhibit superior SSI performance relative to conventional rectangular and square profiles. The smooth curved perimeter eliminates corner Winkler spring concentrations, producing more uniform contact pressure distributions and lower peak structural demands. SSI-inclusive FEM analyses report reductions of 84-95% in maximum shear force, 83-90% in peak support reaction, 89% in axial force, and approximately 49% in maximum footing deflection for oval footings versus rectangular equivalents under seismic loading. Reinforcement savings of 15-17% yield proportional cost reductions. Advanced SSI modelling (Pasternak, continuum FEM) and machine learning integration are emerging research frontiers. Priority directions include nonlinear SSI analysis with plastic soil yielding, experimental V-H-M validation of oval footings, taller building (G+10 to G+20) and higher seismic zone (III-V) parametric studies, two-parameter Pasternak SSI modelling, and development of codal design provisions for non-conventional footing geometries.},
      keywords = {Soil-Structure Interaction, SSI, Winkler Spring Model, Footing Geometry, Tall Buildings, STAAD.Pro, Seismic Loading, Oval Footing, IS 1893:2016, Subgrade Reaction Modulus, Bearing Capacity, Differential Settlement, Cost Analysis},
      month = {July},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV10I1-1719784}
  }