Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 58

Overview of Soil-Structure Interaction Principles

Jonathan P. Stewart
University of California, Los Angeles

Overview
A. B. C. D. Introduction General methods of analysis Inertial interaction Kinematic interaction

A. Introduction
Response dictated by interactions between: Structure Foundation Underlying soil/rock
System analysis evaluates response given freefield motion, ug No SSI when___________ SSI effect =______________

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


Inertia base shear (V) and moment (M)
F=ma

M V

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


Inertia base shear (V) and moment (M) V relative foundation/free-field displacement (uf)

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


Inertia base shear (V) and moment (M) V relative foundation/free-field displacement (uf) M relative foundation/free-field rotation (f)

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


uf, f foundation damping

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


uf

uf, f foundation damping Radiation damping foundation acts as wave source

p s f s p

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


uf, f foundation damping Radiation damping foundation acts as wave source Hysteretic damping in soil
uf

Area hysteretic damping, s

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


1. Inertial soil structure interaction
Inertia from vibration of structure and foundation Causes foundation translation and rotation (uf and f)
Directly affects system flexibility and mode shapes Introduces foundation damping

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


2. Kinematic interaction
Incoherent ground motions base slab averaging
u1 u2 u3

Sa

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


2. Kinematic interaction
Incoherent ground motions base slab averaging Ground motion reductions with depth
u2 u1

Sa

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


3. Foundation deformations
Loads from superstructure inertia

A. Introduction. Three critical aspects of SSI


3. Foundation deformations
Loads from superstructure inertia Deformations applied by soil

Beyond scope of current presentation


Nikolaou et al. (2001)

B. General Methods of Analysis


Direct approach
Full modeling of soil, foundation, structure Propagate waves through system

Beyond scope of current presentation

B. General Methods of Analysis


Direct approach Substructure approach Focus of this seminar

C. Inertial Interaction
Springs used to represent soilfoundation interaction Complex-valued
Real part represents stiffness Imaginary part related to damping Combination of real and complex parts comprises Impedance function

C. Inertial Interaction
Springs used to represent soilfoundation interaction Complex-valued If rigid foundation, simplifies to:
3 springs for 2D system 6 springs for 3D system
k j = k j (a0 , ) + ic j (a0 , )
k
kz

kx

C. Inertial Interaction. Effects on System Behavior


Concepts of period lengthening and foundation damping
System period
~ k fixed k fixed h 2 T = 1+ + T kx k
ug uf h u m h

K*fixed, c kx k

System damping
0 = f + ~ i

(T T )

Foundation damping factor

C. Inertial Interaction. Effects on System Behavior


20 16 =0 h/r = 1
Foundation Damping, f(%) 30

= 0.1

e/ru = 0 PGA > 0.2g PGA < 0.1g 20 h/r = 0.5 1.0 10 2.0 0

~ f0 (%)

12 8 4 0 0.0

h/r = 2 h/r = 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Hysteretic soil damping

h/(vs T)

1.5 Period Lengthening, T/T

C. Inertial Interaction. Effects on Base Shear


Force-based procedure SSI affects design spectral ordinate Usually not considered for design of new buildings

0.6

Spectral Acceleration (g)

(a)
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

T,

= Flexible-base period, damping ratio (includes SSI effects)

T, i = Fixed-base period, damping ratio (neglects SSI effects) ~ S

Sa

Sa
~ S

i
a

T
0

~ T

T
1

~ T

0
2

Period (s)

C. Inertial Interaction. Effects on Displacement-Based Pushover Analysis


Initial seismic demand
Should be drawn for foundation motion, not free-field Spectral ordinates should reflect system damping ratio
Initial seismic demand (free-field) Reduced seismic demand (SFSI effects)

Sa

Performance point Pushover curve Reduced seismic demand (SFSI + extra str. damping)

Pushover curve
Soil springs in pushover analysis

Sd

Are these effects important?


YES, especially for short-period structures Field data shows:
Foundation damping ratios up to ~ 10-20% Period lengthening up to ~ 1.5 Foundation/ff Sas at low period as low as ~0.5

SSI Can Affect Retrofit Decisions

SSI Can Affect Retrofit Decisions

Fixed-Base

SSI Can Affect Retrofit Decisions

Flexible-Base

C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions


k j = k j (a0 , ) + ic j (a0 , )
a0 = r/Vs j =
= Poissons ratio

u (translation, x or z) (rocking)
K u ru cu = u VS K r c = VS

ku = u K u
k = K

ru =

Af

r = 4 4 I f

Two aspects of impedance function analysis: 1) Static stiffness (e.g., Kx) 2) Dynamic modifiers (e.g., x, x)

C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions

Static Stiffness (surface foundation)


Circle: Rectangle:

8 Kx = Gru 2
8 K = Gr3 3(1 )

4 Kz = Gru 1
Used in NEHRP Provisions
FEMA-356

C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions

Static Stiffness (embedment modification)


Circle:
(K U )E
2 e = KU 1 + 3 r u

(K )E

e 1 2 = K + r

Rectangle:

FEMA-356

C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions

Dealing with nonuniform profiles


VS

Issue: What is the effective Vs for a nonuniform profile? Vs increase with depth
Increases foundation stiffness Impedes radiation damping at large (low f) relative to halfspace
Depth

C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions

Dealing with nonuniform profiles


For stiffness, use Ze Vs = tt
Ze = 0.75ru or 0.75r zi tt = (Vs )i
Depth VS

zi

For damping, use (Vs)0

C. Inertial Interaction. Impedance Functions

Dealing with nonuniform profiles


0 0 2 z/r G(z)/G0 2 4 6 8 2r G(z) , z/r 0 0 2 4 6 1/2 2/3 n=1 G(z)/G0 2 4 6 8

=0.025

4 6

1.0

TRANSLATION
H a lf . , =

2 0. = 3

0.30
f. , H al

ROCKING

0. 1

Half., =0

=0. 1

0.5

02

BIAS
0.0 0

0 .2

n=

0.

0 0.

25

.5 =0

0.15
Ha
23

lf.,

=0

0. =

0.00

a0 = r/Vs0

a0 = r/Vs0

after Gazetas, 1991

C. Inertial Interaction. Typical Application


1. Evaluate foundation radii

ru = Af
r = 4 4 I f

Analysis of If must consider shear wall configuration and potential rotational coupling between walls

2. Evaluate foundation embedment, e 3. Evaluate effective height of structure, h 4. Initial fixed base damping, i (usually 5%)

C. Inertial Interaction. Typical Application


5. Evaluate T/T using structure-specific model :
Fixed-base period T

Force

k 1 Displacement

C. Inertial Interaction. Typical Application


5. Evaluate T/T using structure-specific model :

~ Teff Teff

~ 2 T f 1 = 1 + s T

0 .5

Force

Fixed-base period T Flexible-base period T Calculate ratio T/T Ductility correction:

keff 1 Displacement

C. Inertial Interaction. Typical application


6. Evaluate foundation damping f based on Teff/Teff, h/r and e/ru e/r = 0.5
u

PGA > 0.2 g PGA < 0.1g


30

30 Foundation Damping, f (%)


e/ru = 0 PGA > 0.2g PGA < 0.1g

Foundation Damping, f(%)

h/r = 0.5 20 1.0

20

h/r = 0.5 1.0

10 2.0 0

10

2.0

1.5 Period Lengthening, T/T

0 1 1.5 Period Lengthening, T/T 2

C. Inertial Interaction. Typical application


7. Evaluate flexible-base damping ratio, 0
0 = f + ~ i
Teff

(T

eff

8. Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates of the change in damping from i to 0


C1 C2 ln(100 0 ) Eq. 3-7 and 3-8 of FEMA440 ~ Sa = Sa (assumes = 0.05) C i 3

Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations
100-0 160-0

8 R/C wall 20L typical

Plan
20-0 Roof 10-0 typical 2nd 1st

3D Footing 26L x 3B x 1.5t

Elevation @ wall

Section @ wall

Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations

Evaluate k Evaluate ku Derive k Derive r from k


ug uf h u m

~ T k kh2 = 1+ + T ku k
ku

k,c h

Limitations
crx = c,x(=0)/(VLaIx)

If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2)

2L 2B
1.0
Footing

x y

0.8

VLa =

3.4Vs (1 )
L/B > 10 L/B = 5

0.6

0.4

range for L/B = 1 - 2 and circles


0.2

(a) rocking around x-axis


0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

cry = c,y(=0)/(VLaIy)

0.8

L/B

L/B = 4-5 L/B = 3 L/B = 2

0.6

0.4

range for L/B = 1 and circles

0.2

(b) rocking around y-axis


0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

B a0 = VS

Modified from: Dobry and Gazetas, 1986

Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2) Deeply embedded foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
3 3 2
e/r = 1 1/2 1

e/r = 1

u
1

1/2 0

1
1/2 0

a 0 = r V

a0

K u ru cu = u Vs

K r c = Vs

Modified from: Apsel and Luco, 1987

Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2) Deeply embedded foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
0 0 2 z/r 2 G(z)/G0 4 6 8 2r G(z) , z/r 0 0 2 4 6 1/2 2/3 n=1 2 G(z)/G0 4 6 8

=0.025

4 6

BIAS
1.0
Half

TRANSLATION
., =

23 0. =

0.30

ROCKING
Ha l

0. 1

f.,

Half., =0 0.5
5 02 0. 0.5 = n=

=0. 1

0.15

Analysis unconservative for:


nonuniform profiles, a0<1

0 .2 3 n= 1

lf., Ha

0. 02

0 =

0.0

0.00

5
3 .2

a0 = r/Vs0

a0 = r/Vs0

after Gazetas, 1991

Limitations
If distributed shear walls, must consider coupling of wall rotations Analysis is conservative for:
High foundation aspect ratios (a/b > 2) Deeply embedded foundations (e/ru > 0.5)
a

vs1

Analysis unconservative for:


nonuniform profiles, a0<1 large impedance contrast at depth; Vs2 2 Vs1

vs2

D. Kinematic Interaction
Contributions from:
Base-slab averaging Foundation embedment

after Veletsos et al., 1997

D. Kinematic Interaction. Base Slab Averaging


Transfer Function Amplitude

Existing theoretical models


User-specified incoherence parameter, Rigid foundation, soil is uniform halfspace

1.0

v = 0
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Disk a/b=1 a/b=1/4, 4

Result is foundation / free-field transfer function, not RRS

4
~ a 0

10

~ = a 0

be
Vs , r

b 2 + sin 2 v b e

after Veletsos and Prasad, 1989; Veletsos et al., 1997

Calibration against field data


4

Amplitude (|H3 |)

= 0.11

0
0 5 10

Frequency (Hz)

15

20

25

0.60

= 0.55
0.40

Surface foundations Shallowly emb.


90% confidence intervals

a
0.20

= -0.037 + 7.4E-04 Vs (m/s)


0.00

200

Vs (m/s)

400

600

Kim and Stewart, 2003

Calibration against field data


Shear Wave Velocity Reduction Factor, n2 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) Site Class 0.1 0.4 0.8 A 1.00 1.00 1.00 B 1.00 0.97 0.95 C 0.97 0.87 0.77 D 0.95 0.71 0.32 E 0.77 0.22 * F * * * Note: Use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA * = should be estimated from site-specific analysis

b be 2 2 ~ + sin v a0 = b Vs ,r e

be ~ ao = 2Vs ,r

be be n1Vs be n1 ~ a0 = = 2Vs ,r 2n2Vs 2n 2


= 0.55

0.60

0.40

Surface foundations Shallowly emb.


90% confidence intervals

a
0.20

= -0.037 + 7.4E-04 Vs (m/s)


0.00

200

Vs (m/s)

400

600

Kim and Stewart, 2003

D. Kinematic Interaction. Embedment Effects


Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1978): Evaluated transfer functions for vertically incident, coherent waves Developed simple model
1.2

Translation
1.0 0.8 Approximation Halfspace Finite soil layer

1.2 1.0 0.8

Rocking

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

rFIM/u g
6

uFIM/ug

0.6 0.4 0.2

e/r = 0.5
0 2

a0=r/Vs

0.0

a0

D. Kinematic Interaction. Embedment Effects


Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1978): Evaluated transfer functions for vertically incident, coherent waves Developed simple model
1.2

Translation
1.0 0.8 Approximation Halfspace Finite soil layer

1.2 1.0 0.8

Rocking

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

rFIM/u g
6

uFIM/ug

0.6 0.4 0.2

e/r = 1
0 2

a0=r/Vs

0.0

a0

D. Kinematic Interaction. Transfer Function to RRS


Veletsos and Prasad (1989): Evaluated RRS at 2% damping for conditions where transfer function amplitude (TFA) known Result:
RRS TFA for T > 0.2 s RRS TFA @ T = 0.2 s for T < 0.2 s

Result valid for free-field spectrum shown to right

Power spectral density of ff motion Source: Veletsos and Prasad (1989)

D. Kinematic Interaction. Transfer Function to RRS


Acceleration (g)
0.4 Acceleration (g) 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 2 4 6 8 Time (s) 10 12
Recorded Filtered

0.8 0.4 0 -0.4 -0.8 2 4 6 8 Time (s)

Recorded Filtered

10

12

1.2

1.2 Tranfer Function Amplitude, RRS 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.01
NWH_fn (Tm = 0.70s) Transfer Function RRS, 2% damping RRS, 5% RRS, 10% RRS, 20%

Tranfer Function Amplitude, RRS

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.01


CAP_fn (Tm = 0.51s) Transfer Function RRS, 2% damping RRS, 5% RRS, 10% RRS, 20%

0.1

Period (s)

10

0.1

Period (s)

10

Procedure for KI
Evaluate effective foundation size, be = ab
a

Evaluate embedment depth, e

Procedure for KI
Foundation/Free-Field RRS

Evaluate RRS from base slab averaging, RRSbsa

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Period, T (s) 1 1.2

Simplified Model
be = 65 ft be = 130 ft be = 200 ft be = 330 ft

Procedure for KI
Foundation/Free-Field RRS

Evaluate RRS from embedment: RRSe RRS = RRSbsa RRSe

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Period, T (s) 1.6 2 C

D Site Classes C and D


e = 10 ft e = 20 ft e = 30 ft

Limitations of KI Procedure
Neglect KI effects for soft clay sites (NEHRP E) Firm rock sites (i.e., NEHRP A and B):
Neglect embedment effects Based slab averaging model conservative (overestimates RRS)

Base slab averaging model not applicable for


Flexible foundations (non-interconnected) Pile-supported foundations with slab-soil gap

References
Apsel, R.J. and Luco, J.E. (1987). Impedance functions for foundations embedded in a layered medium: an integral equation approach, J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 15(2), 213-231. Day, S.M. (1978). Seismic response of embedded foundations, Proc. ASCE Convention, Chicago, IL, October, Preprint No. 3450. Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G (1986). Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations, J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(2), 109-135. Elsabee, F. and Morray, J.P. (1977). Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations, Rpt. No. R77-33, Dept. of Civil Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. FEMA-356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000. FEMA-440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, June, 2005. Gazetas, G. (1991). Chapter 15: Foundation Vibrations, Foundation Engineering Handbook, H.-Y. Fang, ed., 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Kim, S. and Stewart, J.P. (2003)."Kinematic soil-structure interaction from strong motion recordings,"J. Geotech.. & Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 129 (4), 323-335. Nikolaou, S., Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G., and Tazoh, T. (2001). Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis and field measurements, Geotechnique, 51(5), 425-440. Veletsos, A.S. and Verbic, B. (1973). Vibration of viscoelastic foundations, J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 2(1), 87-102. Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Wu, W.H. (1997). Transfer functions for rigid rectangular foundations, J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 26 (1), 5-17. Veletsos, A.S. and Prasad, A.M. (1989). Seismic interaction of structures and soils: stochastic approach, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(4), 935-956.