Title: Foundation to Frame: Integrating Geotechnical Analysis with ETABS for
Structural Design
Author: Dr. Evelyn Reed, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng.
Foreword by: Prof. Michael Chen, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Copyright Page
© [Year] by Structural-Geotech Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ETABS® is a registered trademark of Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI). This
book is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or
otherwise approved by CSI.
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1: Introduction: Bridging the Gap Between Soil and Structure
1.1 The Importance of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)
1.2 Limitations of Fixed-Base Assumptions
1.3 The Role of ETABS in Integrated Design
1.4 Overview of the Book
Chapter 2: Geotechnical Engineering Fundamentals for the Structural Designer
2.1 Soil Mechanics Primer: Strength, StiZness, and Permeability
2.2 Foundation Types: Shallow and Deep
2.3 Key Geotechnical Parameters: φ, c, Eₛ, ν, G₀, kₕ
2.4 Interpreting the Geotechnical Investigation Report (GIR)
Chapter 3: Modeling Foundations and Soil in ETABS
3.1 ETABS Overview: Capabilities and Limitations for Geotechnical Modeling
3.2 Modeling Fixed-Base vs. Flexible-Base Conditions
3.3 Modeling Piles and Piers as Point Elements
3.4 Modeling Mat/Raft Foundations as Shell Elements
3.5 Modeling Footings and Grade Beams as Frame Elements
Chapter 4: Representing Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)
4.1 The Concept of Springs: Linear and Nonlinear
4.2 Modeling Soil Bearing with Area Springs
4.3 Modeling Lateral Soil Pressure with Line Springs (p-y curves simplified)
4.4 Modeling Pile Foundations with Point Springs
4.5 Defining Spring StiZness: Theory and Practical Estimation from SPT, CPT, and
GIR
Chapter 5: Advanced SSI: Modeling with Nonlinear Link Elements
5.1 Introduction to ETABS Link Elements for SSI
5.2 Modeling Soil Hysteresis and Energy Dissipation
5.3 Simplified Modeling of p-y, t-z, and q-z Behavior for Piles
5.4 Practical Considerations for Analysis Convergence
Chapter 6: Seismic Considerations and Dynamic SSI
6.1 Seismic Site Response: Site Class and Spectral Acceleration
6.2 Kinematic vs. Inertial Interaction
6.3 Modeling for Response Spectrum Analysis with SSI
6.4 The Role of Damping in Soil-Foundation-Structure Systems
Chapter 7: A Comprehensive Step-by-Step Case Study
7.1 Project Description: A 10-Story Moment Frame Building on Clay
7.2 Reviewing the Geotechnical Report
7.3 Step 1: Building the Superstructure Model
7.4 Step 2: Defining Foundation Elements and Soil Springs
7.5 Step 3: Running Analyses (Static, Modal, Response Spectrum)
7.6 Step 4: Comparing Results: Fixed-Base vs. Flexible-Base
7.7 Step 5: Interpreting Outputs: Drift, Settlements, Foundation Forces
7.8 Step 6: Iterating the Design
Chapter 8: Results Interpretation and Design Output
8.1 Evaluating DiZerential Settlements
8.2 Checking Soil Bearing Pressures from Spring Forces
8.3 Designing Foundations Based on ETABS Output
8.4 Presenting Integrated Results in Design Calculations
Chapter 9: Common Pitfalls and Best Practices
9.1 Over-reliance on Software Without Engineering Judgment
9.2 The Danger of "Garbage In, Garbage Out": Incorrect Spring StiZnesses
9.3 Communication Protocols Between Geotechnical and Structural Engineers
9.4 Validation and Sanity Checks for Model Results
Chapter 10: The Future of Integrated Modeling
10.1 BIM Integration for Geotechnical Data
10.2 Cloud-Based SSI Analysis
10.3 Machine Learning for Predicting Soil Parameters
Appendices
A: Example Geotechnical Data Sheet for Input into ETABS
B: Sample ETABS Model File
C: Notation and Glossary
D: References and Further Reading
Index
Foreword
The historical division between the "below-grade" world of geotechnical
engineering and the "above-grade" realm of structural engineering has long been
a necessary but challenging aspect of civil design. For too long, structural
engineers have been forced to simplify the complex behavior of soil into rigid
fixed-base conditions or overly simplistic spring constants, while geotechnical
engineers provide recommendations without always seeing how they are
implemented in the global structural model.
Dr. Reed's Foundation to Frame is a significant step toward closing this gap. This
book provides a practical, insightful, and much-needed guide for translating
fundamental geotechnical principles into a powerful structural analysis tool like
ETABS. It moves beyond theory and delivers a clear methodology for practicing
engineers to create more realistic, economical, and safer models that truly
account for the dynamic interplay between a structure and the ground that
supports it.
This text is an essential resource for modern structural engineers, geotechnical
engineers seeking to understand the needs of their structural counterparts, and
advanced students preparing for a future where integrated design is not just an
advantage, but a standard.
Prof. Michael Chen
Preface
This book was born from a recurring challenge I witnessed in both professional
practice and academia: the struggle to eZectively incorporate soil-structure
interaction (SSI) into everyday structural design. ETABS is an industry-standard
tool for analyzing and designing buildings, yet its powerful capabilities for
modeling foundations and soil are often underutilized due to a lack of clear,
practical guidance.
My goal is not to make structural engineers into geotechnical experts, or vice
versa. Rather, it is to provide a common language and a set of practical tools that
allow both disciplines to collaborate more eZectively. The methods described
herein prioritize practical application. We will often use simplified, conservative
approaches that are defendable and can be implemented within the constraints
of a real-world project schedule.
You will learn how to read a geotechnical report not just for design parameters,
but for the data needed to build a model. You will learn how to create springs that
rationally represent soil stiZness. Most importantly, you will learn how to
interpret the results of this more complex model to make better design
decisions.
I hope this book empowers you to look at your ETABS model not as a structure
floating in space, but as one part of a continuous system, deeply and intrinsically
connected to the earth.
Dr. Evelyn Reed
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to the countless engineers and researchers whose work in soil-
structure interaction provided the foundation for this book. Special thanks to the
team at Computers and Structures, Inc. for their technical documentation. My
gratitude extends to my colleagues and students who reviewed early drafts and
provided invaluable feedback. Finally, to my family, thank you for your
unwavering support and patience during the countless hours spent writing.
Excerpt from Chapter 7: A Comprehensive Step-by-Step Case Study
7.4 Step 2: Defining Foundation Elements and Soil Springs
With the superstructure model complete, we now turn to the foundation. The
geotechnical report recommends a piled raft foundation due to the soft clay
layer extending to 15m depth. The report provides an average undrained shear
strength (sᵤ) of 75 kPa and a recommended modulus of subgrade reaction (kₕ) of
15,000 kN/m³ for lateral pile analysis.
Modeling the Raft:
We model the 1.2m thick reinforced concrete raft using thick shell elements. The
key step is assigning area springs to the underside of the raft to represent bearing
contact with the soil.
Calculating Vertical Spring StiZness:
For a preliminary model, we can estimate the vertical spring stiZness (kᵥ) per unit
area using the relationship with the modulus of subgrade reaction (kₛ). A
common approximation is kᵥ ≈ kₛ. A more rigorous method uses the soil's elastic
modulus (Eₛ). From the correlation Eₛ = 500*sᵤ for clay, we get Eₛ = 500 * 75 kPa =
37,500 kPa.
The stiZness for a unit area (1m x 1m) spring can be estimated as:
k (kN/m/m²) = Eₛ / ( (1-ν²) * √(A) ) * multiplier
... [text continues with detailed calculation and input into ETABS] ...
Modeling the Piles:
The 400mm diameter concrete piles are modeled as frame elements embedded
down to 18m. Their interaction with the soil is modeled using nonlinear link
elements at each pile node.
Defining p-y Links for Lateral Load:
Based on the provided kₕ value and using the API guidelines for soft clay, we
define multi-linear plastic (Wen) link properties to approximate the p-y curve
behavior. This allows the piles to yield plastically in the soil under high lateral
loads, a more realistic representation than simple linear springs.
... [The chapter continues with defining the analysis cases and running the
model] ...
7.6 Step 4: Comparing Results: Fixed-Base vs. Flexible-Base
The results are striking and demonstrate why SSI analysis is critical:
Parameter Fixed-Base Model Flexible-Base (SSI) Model % DiZerence
Implication
Fundamental Period (T₁) 2.1 sec 2.7 sec +28.5% Softer system, lower
seismic forces
Max Story Drift (X-Dir) 1/350 1/275 +27% Drift serviceability may
govern
Max Axial Load on Corner Pile (kN) 2,850 3,450 +21% Critical for pile
design
Max Settlement (mm) N/A 45 mm N/A Must check diZerential settlement
*Table 7-1: Comparison of Key Results*
The flexible-base model reveals a longer period, which would generally reduce
the seismic base shear demand on the superstructure. However, it also shows
increased drifts and a significant redistribution of forces into the corner piles. A
design based solely on the fixed-base assumption would have been non-
conservative for the pile foundation design, potentially leading to inadequate
piles. This redistribution is due to the global overturning moment being resisted
by a couple between the uplifted and bearing piles, a phenomenon a fixed-base
model cannot capture.
This case study underscores the necessity of integrated modeling for a complete
and accurate understanding of building behavior.
