2000 A Simple Soil-Structure Interaction Model. Kocak, Mengi

A simple soilstructure interaction model
Suleyman Kocak
a,
*
, Yalcin Mengi
b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Cukurova University, Adana 01330, Turkey
b
Department of Engineering Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06531, Turkey
Received 8 October 1998; received in revised form 13 December 1999; accepted 22 December 1999
Abstract
A simple three-dimensional soilstructure interaction (SSI) model is proposed. First, a model is developed for a
layered soil medium. In that model, the layered soil medium is divided into thin layers and each thin layer is represented
by a parametric model. The parameters of this model are determined, in terms of the thickness and elastic properties of
the sublayer, by matching, in frequencywave number space, the actual dynamic stiness matrices of the sublayer when
the sublayer is thin and subjected to plane strain and out-of-plane deformations with those predicted by the parametric
model developed in this study. Then, by adding the structure to soil model a three-dimensional nite element model is
established for the soilstructure system. For the oors and footings of the structure, rigid diaphragm model is em-
ployed. Based on the proposed model, a general computer software is developed. Though the model accommodates
both the static and dynamic interaction eects, the program is developed presently for static case only and will be
extended to dynamic case in a future study. To assess the proposed SSI model, the model is applied to four examples,
which are chosen to be static so that they can be analyzed by the developed program. The results are compared with
those obtained by other methods. It is found that the proposed model can be used reliably in SSI analysis, and ac-
commodates not only the interaction between soil and structure; but, also the interaction between footings. 2000
Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Layered soil medium; Parametric model; Dynamic stiness matrix; Frequency; Wave number; Rigid
diaphragm; Soilstructure interaction; Footingfooting interaction
1. Introduction
As is well known, there are two main methods which are being used in the soilstructure in-
teraction (SSI) analysis, namely, substructure and direct methods [17]. Also it is known that, due
to unbounded nature of soil medium, the computational size of these methods is very large. For
this reason it is important to establish some simple SSI models which reduce the computational
cost of analysis; but at the same time, accommodate the essential features of interaction. One of
such models is cone model [810]. In that model, the eects of waves in soil are simulated by
modelling the soil by elastic conic bars.
In this study, a new simple model is proposed for three-dimensional SSI analysis. In this model,
it is assumed that the soil has a layered structure and is elastic. Dissipative forces in soil are taken
www.elsevier.nl/locate/apm
Applied Mathematical Modelling 24 (2000) 607635
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: skocak@mail.cu.edu.tr (S. Kocak).
0307-904X/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 7 - 9 0 4 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 6 - 8
into account through the use of hysteretic damping. If desired, nonlinear eects in soil may be
accounted for by employing equivalent linear method [4]. In the proposed model, the layered soil
medium is subdivided into thin layers and each sublayer is represented by a parametric model.
Parametric model is composed of some distributed springs and ctitious horizontal elements
connecting the upper and lower ends of the springs. For vertical motion of the soil, distributed
springs are vertical and ctitious horizontal element is a membrane. On the other hand, for
horizontal motion of soil, springs are horizontal and the ctitious horizontal element is a plate
under plane state of stress.
The parametric model thus developed contains three parameters for vertical case, which are
spring constant, membrane force and a mass parameter; and four parameters for horizontal case,
which are spring constant, two parameters belonging to ctitious plate and a mass parameter.
These parameters are related to the thickness and elastic properties of the thin sublayer by
matching, in frequencywave number space, the dynamic stiness matrices of the sublayer de-
termined from the model equations and the exact theory. The actual dynamic stiness matrices of
a thin layer are taken from [11].
Three-dimensional SSI model is obtained by adding the structure to the soil model discussed
above and using the nite element method. It is assumed that structure is composed of vertical
columns, horizontal beams, oors and footings. For the oors and footings of the structure, the
rigid diaphragm model is used [12]. The use of rigid diaphragm model for footings facilitates the
connection of the structure to soil. Three-dimensional model thus developed accommodates both
soilstructure and footingfooting interactions. The structure might have single or continuous or
mat foundation(s). The proposed model can be used in static or dynamic or earthquake inter-
action analysis. In the case of earthquake analysis, it is assumed that seismic environment is
generated by vertically propagating waves and the layered soil medium rests on a rigid bedrock,
which, in turn, implies that rigid bedrock motion is known. In fact, if the control point is in the
site of structure the rigid bedrock motion can be determined through the use of deconvolution.
On the other hand, if the control point is at outcrop the rigid bedrock motion would be given by
control point motion.
The three-dimensional SSI model discussed above has a form suitable for developing a general
purpose computer software. In fact such a computer software is developed in this study in
FORTRAN 77 for static interaction analysis. The extension of the program to dynamic case will
be done in a future study.
The proposed three-dimensional interaction model is assessed by applying it to four example
problems. These problems are chosen to be static so that they can be analyzed by the developed
computer software. In the example problems:
1. a soil layer subjected to a line load,
2. impedance coecients of a strip footing,
3. soil reaction distribution for a rigid strip footing which is under the inuence of a line load,
and
4. three-dimensional SSI analysis of a one-storey building on a soil layer are considered.
Comparisons of the results obtained from the model with those from other methods indicate that
the model can be used reliably in static SSI analysis.
The study is organized as follows. In Section 2, we dene, in general terms, the SSI problem to
be modelled. In Section 3, we propose a model for a layered soil medium. In Section 4, we present
a procedure for determining the model parameters. Section 5 contains a nite element model for
three-dimensional SSI analysis, which is based on the proposed soil model. The connection of the
structure to soil is also discussed in this section. Example problems are given in Section 6. In the
nal section, Section 7, we state some conclusions.
608 S. Kocak, Y. Mengi / Appl. Math. Modelling 24 (2000) 607635
2. General denition of the problem
We consider the soilstructure system shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that the structure is
composed of vertical columns, horizontal beams, oors and footings. The structure might have
single or continuous or mat foundation(s). The soil layer, which is assumed to have a layered
structure, rests on a rigid bedrock. To simplify the interaction analysis, the soil material is taken
as a linear elastic material and dissipative forces in soil are accounted for through the use of
Fig. 1. Soilstructure system (a) system (b) interaction forces.
S. Kocak, Y. Mengi / Appl. Math. Modelling 24 (2000) 607635 609
hysteretic damping. The nonlinear eects in soil, if desired, may be included approximately in the
analyses by using linear equivalent method [4]. The soilstructure system shown in Fig. 1 is re-
ferred to an x
i
-rectangular (i = 1 3) frame in which the (x
1
x
2
) plane is parallel to the plane of
layering.
The structure is under the inuence of some static and dynamic forces and the rigid bedrock is
subjected to an earthquake ground excitation. In the case of earthquake analysis, it is assumed
that seismic environment is generated by vertically propagating waves. This assumption facilitates
the determination of the earthquake displacement u
g
at the rigid bedrock (see Fig. 1). In fact, if
the control point is at outcrop, the rigid bedrock motion is equal to control point displacement.
On the other hand, if the control point is in the site of the structure, the rigid bedrock motion can
be determined in terms of control point motion by using deconvolution. For example, for a single
elastic, homogeneous soil layer of depth d, the deconvolution formula would be
u
F
g
=
u
F
c
cosad
(1)
which relates the rigid bedrock displacement u
g
to the control point displacement u
c
in Fourier
transform space. Here, the superscript F designates Fourier transform; a = xac the wave number
in vertical direction, where x is the frequency, and c is given by
c =
c
s
=
laq
_
(shear wave velocity) when the vertical waves are S wavesY
c
p
=
(k 2l)aq
_
(dilatational wave velocity) when the vertical waves are P wavesY
_
_
_
where l is the shear modulus, k (= 2mla(1 2m)) the Lames constant, m Poissons ratio, and q is
the mass density.
It may be noted that when the vertical waves generating the earthquake motion are S waves,
then the base displacement u
g
would be horizontal; on the other hand, when they are P waves, u
g
would be vertical. The dissipative forces in soil can be taken into account by making the
replacement, in Fourier transform space,
l l(1 2iz
s
)Y (2)
where z
s
is the hysteretic damping and i is the imaginary number.
We now start developing the model for the SSI problem stated above.
3. The soil model
For developing this model, the soil part of the soilstructure system in Fig. 1 is divided into
thin layers as shown in Fig. 2. In the gure, the number of sublayers are designated by N; sub-
layers and interfaces are numbered downwards; the depth, mass density, shear modulus and
Poisson's ratio of the ith sublayer are designated respectively by h
i
Y q
i
Y l
i
and m
i
and the layered
soil medium is referred to an x
i
-rectangular (i = 1 3) frame in which the (x
1
x
2
) plane is parallel
to the plane of layering and x
3
axis is directed downwards.
In the proposed model, each thin layer is represented by distributed springs, and two hori-
zontal ctitious elements having the same properties which connect the upper and lower ends of
the springs. For vertical motion of the soil, distributed springs are vertical and the ctitious
horizontal element is a membrane (see Fig. 3). Here, one can obtain the Winkler model [13] by
ignoring the ctitious horizontal element, implying that we disregard the interaction between
neighboring springs. The unit cell shown in the gure represents the ith thin layer and contains
three parameters, which are spring constant K
i
(dened per unit horizontal area), tension in the
membrane C
i
(dened per unit length) and mass parameter m
i
(dened per unit horizontal area)
and u
i
3
and F
i
3
designate, for the ith interface, the vertical displacement and force (per unit area),
respectively.
The model proposed for horizontal motion of the soil is shown in Fig. 4. In this case distributed
springs are horizontal (in x
1
and x
2
directions) and ctitious horizontal element is a plate under
plane state of stress. To simplify the drawing only the springs in x
1
direction are shown in the
gure. The unit cell representing the ith thin layer in this case contains four parameters, which are
Fig. 3. The model for vertical case.
Fig. 2. Representation of soil medium in terms of thin layers.
spring constant K
i
(dened per unit horizontal area), two parameters belonging to ctitious plate
C
i
, S
i
(dened per unit length) and mass parameter m
i
(dened per unit horizontal area); and
u
i
= (u
i
1
Y u
i
2
) and F
i
= (F
i
1
Y F
i
2
) designate, for the ith interface, the horizontal displacement and
forces (per unit area), respectively. Here, we note that the parameters (K
i
, C
i
) in this case are
dierent from those of vertical case.
Here, it should be noted that for the proposed model vertical and horizontal motions are
decoupled, which decreases the computational load of the model. However, adding superstructure
on the top of the soil model couples the vertical and horizontal motions of soil, due to use of rigid
diaphragm model for structure foundation. This will be explained in more detail in Section 5.
We now develop the equations of a unit cell of the soil model.
3.1. Equations of unit cell for vertical resistance of soil model
A unit cell of the model for vertical soil resistance is shown in Fig. 5, where K, C, m are the
parameters of that cell. The upper and lower ends of the cell are numbered, respectively, as 1 and
Fig. 4. The model for horizontal case.
Fig. 5. A unit cell for vertical case.
2 in the gure. The vertical displacement and force of the end i (i = 1Y 2) are designated by (u
1
3
Y F
1
3
)
and (u
2
3
Y F
2
3
), respectively.
When we consider the free-body diagram of an innitesimal membrane element in Fig. 5 and
write equilibrium equations (in the sense of D'Alembert principle) we obtain
F
1
3
F
2
3
_
_
_
_
= K
1 1
1 1
_
_
_
_
u
1
3
u
2
3
_
_
_
_
C\
2
u
1
3
u
2
3
_
_
_
_
m
u
1
3
u
2
3
_
_
_
_
(3)
which relates the unit cell forces to unit cell displacements. Here dot denotes dierentiation with
respect to time t and \
2
is Laplacian operator dened by
\
2
=
o
2
ox
2
1
o
2
ox
2
2
X (4)
Unit cell equation, Eq. (3), may be written in Fourier transform space as
F
1
3
F
2
3
_
_
_
_
=
K mx
2
K
K K mx
2
_
_
_
_
u
1
3
u
2
3
_
_
_
_
C\
2
u
1
3
u
2
3
_
_
_
_
Y (5)
where F
i
3
and u
i
3
(i = 1Y 2) stand to Fourier transforms of force and displacements. To simplify the
notation, superscript F is not used in Eq. (5) and will not be used hereafter.
The hysteretic damping can be introduced into the unit cell equations by making the
replacement
K K(1 2iz
s
) (6)
in Eq. (5).
3.2. Equations of unit cell for horizontal resistance of soil model
A unit cell of the model for this case is shown in Fig. 6, where K, C, S and m are the parameters
of the cell. In that gure (u
1
, F
1
) and (u
2
, F
2
) denote, respectively, the displacements and forces of
the upper and lower ends of the cell. Here, we use the notation
u
i
= (u
i
1
Y u
i
2
)Y F
i
= (F
i
1
Y F
i
2
) (i = 1Y 2) (7)
for unit cell displacement and forces. It may be noted that, in Eq. (7), superscript designates the
end of unit cell and subscript designates the direction of displacement or force.
Fig. 6. A unit cell for horizontal case.
The lower and upper ends of the distributed horizontal springs are connected by ctitious
plates which are under plane state of stress. When we consider the free-body diagram of inni-
tesimal plate element in Fig. 6 and write equilibrium equations (in the sense of D'Alembert
principle) we obtain
F
1
i
F
2
i
_
_
_
_
= K
1 1
1 1
_
_
_
_
u
1
i
u
2
i
_
_
_
_
C
2
\
2
u
1
i
u
2
i
_
_
_
_
So
i
D
1
D
2
_
_
_
_
m
u
1
i
u
2
i
_
_
_
_
(i = 1Y 2) (8)
which relates horizontal forces and displacements of unit cell. Here, o
i
= oaoX
i
(partial derivative
with respect to x
i
) and D
k
is dilatation at kth end of unit cell dened by
D
k
= o
1
u
k
1
o
2
u
k
2
(k = 1Y 2) (9)
An important point is now in order. For the horizontal resistance of the soil model, we assume
that the ctitious horizontal element connecting the springs is a plate which is under the inuence
of plane state of stress. Thus, the deformation of this plate would involve two independent elastic
constants, for example elasticity modulus and Poissons ratio. This explains why Eq. (8) contains
two independent parameters C and S, of course, in addition to the spring constant K and mass
parameter m.
Unit cell equation, Eq. (8), may be written in Fourier transform space as
F
1
i
F
2
i
_
_
_
_
=
K mx
2
K
K K mx
2
_
_
_
_
u
1
i
u
2
i
_
_
_
_
C
2
\
2
u
1
i
u
2
i
_
_
_
_
So
i
D
1
D
2
_
_
_
_
(i = 1Y 2)X (10)
The hysteretic damping ratio can be introduced into the unit cell equations by using the cor-
respondence principle in Eq. (6).
4. Determination of model parameters
Unit cell Eqs. (5) and (10) contain, respectively, three and four parameters, which are
for vertical case X K
v
Y C
v
Y m
v
Y
for horizontal case X K
h
Y C
h
Y SY m
h
Y
(11)
where the subscripts v and h are used, respectively, for vertical and horizontal cases. In this
section, the parameters of the proposed model will be determined, in terms of the thickness h,
mass density q, and elastic properties l and m of the sublayer (see Fig. 7) by matching, in fre-
quencywave number space, the dynamic stiness matrices of a thin sublayer (subjected to plane
strain and out-of-plane deformations), determined from the model equations and exact theory.
Here it may be noted that plane strain and out-of-plane deformations in soil are produced,
respectively, by P, SV and SH waves.
The actual dynamic stiness equations can be found in [11] for a thin sublayer undergoing
plane strain and out-of-plane deformations. These equations for plane strain and out-of-plane
cases can be written in the common form
F = DUY (12)
where F Y U and D are, respectively, force, displacement vectors and dynamic stiness matrix
which are dened by, for plane strain and out-of-plane cases,
for plane strain case:
F = F
1
1
iF
1
3
F
2
1
iF
2
3
_
T
Y u = u
1
1
iu
1
3
u
2
1
iu
2
3
_
T
(13)
and
D = G Bk Ak
2
x
2
MY (14)
where k is being wave number in x
1
direction (see Fig. 7) and
G =
1
h
l 0 l 0
0 A 0 A
l 0 l 0
0 A 0 A
_
_
_
_
Y
B =
1
2
0 E 0 P
E 0 P 0
0 P 0 E
P 0 E 0
_
_
_
_
Y
A =
h
6
2A 0 A 0
0 2l 0 l
A 0 2A 0
0 l 0 2l
_
_
_
_
Y
M =
qh
6
2 0 1 0
0 2 0 1
1 0 2 0
0 1 0 2
_
_
_
_
Y
(15)
Fig. 7. A typical thin layer.
in which
A =
2(1 m)
1 2m
lY P =
1
1 2m
lY E =
4m 1
1 2m
lY (16)
for out-of-plane case:
F = F
1
2
F
2
2
_
T
u = u
1
2
u
2
2
_
T
(17)
and
D = G Ak
2
x
2
MY (18)
in which
G =
l
h
1 1
1 1
_ _
Y A =
lh
6
2 1
1 2
_ _
Y M =
qh
6
2 1
1 2
_ _
X (19)
In Eq. (14), B denes the coupling between horizontal and vertical motion of the sublayer for
plane strain case. In this study, it is assumed that the free-eld system is subjected to vertical
waves and thus, the coupling described above can be assumed to be small. In view of this
assumption, Eq. (14) can be written as
D = G Ak
2
x
2
M (20)
when B is ignored.
To obtain the stiness equations of the proposed model for plane strain and out-of-plane cases,
we rst note that model displacements are dependent only on x
1
and t, i.e.,
u
i
k
= u
i
k
(x
1
Y t) (i = 1Y 2Y k = 1 3)X (21)
When the unit cell equations, Eqs. (3) and (8), are written in Fourier transform space (with respect
to time t and x
1
) in view of Eq. (21), one can obtain the dynamic stiness matrix of the model
again in the form of Eq. (20), but, in this case G, A, M matrices are dened by
for plane strain case:
G =
K
h
0 K
h
0
0 K
v
0 K
v
K
h
0 K
h
0
0 K
v
0 K
v
_
_
_
_
Y
A =
(C
h
a2) S 0 0 0
0 C
v
0 0
0 0 (C
h
a2) S 0
0 0 0 C
v
_
_
_
_
Y (22)
M =
m
h
0 0 0
0 m
h
0 0
0 0 m
h
0
0 0 0 m
h
_
_
_
_
Y
for out-of-plane case:
G =
K
h
K
h
K
h
K
h
_ _
Y A =
C
h
a2 0
0 C
h
a2
_ _
Y M =
m
h
0
0 m
h
_ _
X (23)
The model parameters may be obtained by matching the G, A and M matrices given in
Eqs. (15) and (19) and Eqs. (22) and (23) which belong, respectively, to the exact theory and
model. If o-diagonal terms in A and M matrices in Eqs. (15) and (19) are lumped on the diagonal
terms, the model parameters may be found as
K
h
=
l
h
Y C
h
= lhY S =
lh
2(1 2m)
Y m
h
=
qh
2
Y
K
v
=
2(1 m)l
(1 2m)h
Y C
v
=
lh
2
Y m
v
=
qh
2
Y
(24)
where m
h
and m
v
represent the mass values of the thin layer lumped at its upper and lower ends.
5. A nite element model for three-dimensional SSI analysis
In this section, the structure will be added to soil foundation through the use of nite element
method and the SSI model thus developed will be described briey. In the development of this SSI
model we do the following assumptions:
1. For the soil we use the model proposed in Section 3.
2. The structure is composed of vertical columns, horizontal beams, oors and footings. The
structure might have single or continuous or mat foundation(s).
3. We use rigid diaphragm model for oors and footings [12]. The use of rigid diaphragm model
for footings facilitates the connection of structure to soil foundation.
4. The foundation of the structure is perfectly bonded to soil foundation.
The nite element model is based on writing stiness and mass matrices for soil, beam, column
and plate elements and combining them by coding technique, in view of rigid diaphragm as-
sumption, so that the equilibrium equations (in the sense of DAlembert principle) and com-
patibility conditions at the nodes are satised. A special care will be given to the connection of
structure to soil foundation.
As the equations of beam, column and plate elements are well established and the use of rigid
diaphragm model in the formulation of three-dimensional response of structures is well known in
literature, in what follows we develop only, based on the proposed model in Section 3, the stiness
and mass matrices for soil elements and emphasize the procedure by which the soil foundation
and structure can be connected.
Since the equations of the proposed model are uncoupled for vertical and horizontal cases, we
present the stiness and mass matrices of soil elements for the aforementioned cases separately.
However, it should be noted that when the soil elements are combined with the structure the
vertical and horizontal degrees of freedoms (DOFs) of soil elements would become coupled due to
the presence of the structure foundation which is modelled by using rigid diaphragm assumption.
5.1. The soil element for vertical case
A three-dimensional element associated with a unit cell of the soil model undergoing vertical
displacements is shown in Fig. 8. As the soil model eliminates the dimension in vertical direction,
the element in the gure should be taken as dimensionless in that direction. The ctitious vertical
dimension is used in the gure to dierentiate the upper and lower ends of the cell. The horizontal
faces of the elements are taken as quadrilateral and the corners of the element are numbered as
shown in the gure.
In the formulation we use bilinear interpolation functions for both geometry and vertical
displacement distributions (u
i
3
(x
1
Y x
2
) (i = 1Y 2)) over the upper and lower faces of the element.
When we use virtual work principle for the unit cell equations given in Eq. (5) and follow the
procedure used in conventional nite element formulation, we obtain the dynamic stiness matrix
as, in Fourier transform space,
D =
~
K
~
C x
2
M
~
K
~
K
~
K
~
C x
2
M
_ _
(25)
for the three-dimensional soil element. In Eq. (25) the rst and second rows represent, respec-
tively, the force DOFs of the upper and lower faces, and the rst and second columns represent
the displacement DOFs of the upper and lower faces. Consequently, the o-diagonal matrices
describe the coupling between the upper and lower faces of the element. The matrices
~
KY
~
C and M in Eq. (25) are dened as
~
K = K
v
_
A
NN
T
dAY
~
C = C
v
_
A
[ o
1
N o
2
N [
o
1
N
T
o
2
N
T
_ _
dAY
M = m
v
_
A
NN
T
dAY
(26)
Fig. 8. Three-dimensional soil element (vertical case).
where A is the area of the horizontal face of the element and N is a vector of the dimension (4 1)
containing bilinear interpolation functions. The elastic and dynamic eects are both included in
the dynamic stiness matrix in Eq. (25). The hysteretic damping can be introduced into the model
through the use of Eq. (6).
5.2. The soil element for horizontal case
A three-dimensional element associated with a unit cell of the model undergoing horizontal
displacements is shown in Fig. 9. As stated for vertical case, ctitious vertical dimension is used to
dierentiate upper and lower ends of the cell. The horizontal faces of the element are taken as
quadrilateral and the corners of the element are numbered as shown in the gure.
As in vertical case, here again we use bilinear interpolation functions for both geometry and
horizontal displacement distributions (u
i
1
(x
1
Y x
2
)Y u
i
2
(x
1
Y x
2
)Y (i = 1Y 2)) over the upper and lower
faces of the element. When we use virtual work principle for the unit cell equations given in
Eq. (10) and follow the procedure used in conventional nite element formulation, we obtain
the dynamic stiness matrix as, in Fourier transform space,
D =
A
1
A
2
B
B
T
A
1
A
2
_
_
_
_
(27)
for the three-dimensional soil element. In Eq. (27) the rst and second rows represent, respec-
tively, the force DOFs of the upper and lower faces, and the rst and second columns represent
the displacement DOFs of the upper and lower faces. The matrices A
1
Y A
2
and D in Eq. (27) are
dened as
Fig. 9. Three-dimensional soil element (horizontal case).
A
1
=
~
K (C
h
a2)
~
C
11
(C
h
a2)
~
C
22
S
~
C
11
S
~
C
21
S
~
C
12
~
K (C
h
a2)
~
C
11
(C
h
a2)
~
C
22
S
~
C
11
_
_
_
_
Y (28)
A
2
=
x
2
M 0
0 x
2
M
_ _
Y
B = B
T
=
~
K 0
0
~
K
_ _
Y
in which
~
K = K
h
_
A
NN
T
dAY
~
C
ij
=
_
A
o
i
No
j
N
T
dA (iY j = 1Y 2)Y
M = m
h
_
A
NN
T
dAX
(29)
In Eq. (28), the rst row and column of the matrices represent the DOFs in x
1
and the second row
and column represent the DOFs in x
2
direction. The hysteretic damping again can be introduced
into the model through the use of Eq. (6).
5.3. The connection of the structure to soil
In this section, the connection of the structure to soil foundation is discussed very briey. In
the SSI system considered in this study, the foundation of the structure is assumed to be per-
fectly bonded to soil foundation which implies that the structure and soil, at the points of
contact area, would move together. To satisfy this continuity condition between the structure
and soil foundation, the equations of soil elements should be modied when they have nodes
over the contact area. For vertical case, the modied equations can be obtained by introducing
rotational DOFs about x
1
and x
2
axes, in addition to vertical DOF, for the nodes lying over
contact area. On the other hand, for horizontal case, the modied equations can be derived by
imposing rigid diaphragm constraints, for horizontal DOFs, to the nodes lying over the contact
area.
To explain the connection more explicitly, we refer to Fig. 10 showing the nite element mesh
of a soil foundation referred to an x
1
x
2
x
3
global coordinate system. In the gure, the shaded
regions represent the contact areas of the footings of the superstructure; M represents the master
point of rigid diaphragm model used for each contact area; D
1
Y D
2
and D
h
represent, respectively,
the displacements in x
1
, x
2
(horizontal) directions and rotation about x
3
(vertical) axis. The
horizontal displacements (d
1
Y d
2
) of an arbitrary point in contact area are related to master point
displacements (D
1
Y D
2
Y D
h
) by, in view of rigid diaphragm assumption,
d
1
= D
1
(x
2
x
M
2
)D
h
Y
d
2
= D
2
(x
1
x
M
1
)D
h
Y
(30)
where (x
M
1
Y x
M
2
) and (x
1
Y x
2
) denote, respectively, the horizontal coordinates of the master point M
and arbitrary point. We now discuss the connection procedure for horizontal and vertical cases
separately.
(a) Horizontal case: Horizontal displacements of the nodes lying over the contact area are
related to the horizontal displacements and rotation (about vertical axis) of the master point by
Eqs. (30). By using these constraints in Eq. (27), the modied equations can be obtained, for
horizontal case, for the soil elements having nodes over the contact area. It should be noted that
these modications should be done not only for the element A which lies completely in the
contact area; but, also for the neighboring elements B and C which have nodes in that area (see
Fig. 10).
(b) Vertical case: As stated previously, the connection for this case could be done by intro-
ducing rotational DOFs about x
1
and x
2
axes for the nodes lying over the contact area (see
Fig. 10), which dictates that we modify Eq. (25) for the elements having nodes on that area. To
simplify the formulation and the computer implementation, this modication is done in the
present study not only for the aforementioned elements; but, also for the elements outside the
contact area.
The modied form of the equations for horizontal and vertical cases are not given here not to
lengthen the paper.
Fig. 10. Modelling the footings by rigid diaphragms.
5.4. Information about the computer program
A computer program is developed, based on the proposed model, for three-dimensional SSI
analysis. The program is written in FORTRAN 77. Though the proposed model accommodates
both static and dynamic eects, presently the computer program is developed for static interaction
analysis and the extension of the computer program to dynamic case will be done in a future
study.
The system stiness matrix is formed as a skyline matrix which is stored in out-of-core by
blocks and the solution is obtained by LDU decomposition algorithm [14]. The numbering of the
DOFs of the nodes is done automatically by the program so that the computational load of the
solution of the system equations is minimum.
The program has some modules working sequentially. The input le has some blocks con-
taining information about system, coordinates, layers, etc., similar to those of SAP90 [15]. The
output les have a structure easy to interpret.
In the program, only the upper surface of soil is discretized. The nite element meshes of the
layers underneath are generated by projecting the nodes of the top surface on horizontal layers
and numbered by the program automatically. With this generation facility the nite element mesh
for the whole domain is assembled by the program, copying the nite element mesh of the top soil
layer like slices of meshes for as many of sublayers as dened. Therefore, user do not have to mesh
the layers underneath the top of soil resulting minimum data preparation eort. Once the mesh on
the top of soil is dened the other nodes of the sublayers are generated by the program provided
that the number of layers is dened by the user. However, for the denition of superstructure the
complete nite element mesh has to be entered by the user.
The computer software can be obtained, together with its manual, from the authors upon
request.
6. Example problems
In this section, with the object of assessing the model we analyze some example problems, and
compare the results obtained from the model with those from other methods. The example
problems considered in this section are:
1. a soil layer subjected to a line load,
2. impedance coecients of a strip footing,
3. soil reaction distribution for a rigid strip footing which is under the inuence of a line load,
4. three-dimensional SSI analysis of a one-storey building on a soil layer.
Problems 1, 2 and 3 are two-dimensional and involve only the soil foundation without super-
structure on it. As the mesh of the top surface in these problems is two-dimensional and has a
simple form, to save space, it is not given in the paper. However, for Problem 4, which is three-
dimensional and contains a superstructure, all the details regarding the mesh used in the analysis
are given. As mentioned before, program discretizes the horizontal layers of soil model auto-
matically.
6.1. Problem 1: a soil layer subjected to a line load
We consider an elastic layer resting on a rigid bedrock and subjected to a vertical or hori-
zontal line load. The vertical loading case is shown in Fig. 11. The layer has a depth of H and is
referred to an x
1
x
2
x
3
global coordinate system. The vertical line load P extends to innity in
out-of-plane direction (along x
2
axis). In horizontal loading case, the line load P acts in x
1
direction. The shear modulus and Poisson's ratio of the layer are designated by l and m in the
gure.
The analyses of the problems stated above are performed by the computer program developed
in this study and the results are compared with the ones obtained from boundary element method
(BEM) [1620], in terms of nondimensional (ND) variables, in Figs. 12 and 13 (for the Poisson
ratio m =0.2). It may be noted that BEM is a semi-analytical method whose accuracy is much
better than FEM, in particular, for dynamic problems and for problems with the solution domain
extending to innity in some directions. The accuracy of the boundary element results in this
problem is insured by increasing the number of boundary elements employed in the analysis until
the convergence of the results is achieved. In the model analyses, the model parameters are de-
termined through the use of Eq. (24). In Figs. 12 and 13, ND vertical and horizontal displace-
ments (u
3
) and (u
1
) are dened by
(u
3
Y u
1
) =
l
P
(u
3
Y u
1
) (31)
and
x
1
=
x
1
a
(32)
in which a represents a characteristic length. The results are obtained when
H = a
and are shown in the gures only for x
1
60 due to the symmetry of the problem.
Fig. 11. An elastic layer subjected to a vertical line load.
The model prediction for the vertical displacement distribution of soil surface for vertical line
load problem is obtained by taking the number of sublayers as NS = 1Y 2Y 4Y 10 and compared with
the BEM results in Fig. 12. From the gure it may be observed that when the number of sublayers
(NS) increases the model prediction approaches that of BEM. Fig. 13 gives the same comparison
for horizontal line load problem, which shows that the observation made for vertical case holds
also for this case.
Fig. 13. Horizontal displacement distribution on soil surface (horizontal line load).
Fig. 12. Vertical displacement distribution on soil surface (vertical line load).
6.2. Problem 2: impedance coecients of a strip footing
We consider a rigid strip footing of width B perfectly bonded to an elastic layer of depth H (see
Fig. 14). The layer rests on a rigid bedrock. The rigid strip footing (which extends to innity in
out-of-plane direction) is subjected to static horizontal and vertical forces F
1
Y F
3
and moment M
at its center as shown in the gure. The strip footing system is referred to an x
1
x
3
coordinate
system in which x
1
axis is horizontal and x
3
is directed downwards. The thickness of the footing
will be ignored in the analysis.
The static impedance relation for the rigid strip footing would be in the form
F
1
F
3
M
_
_
_
_
=
S
HH
0 S
HM
0 S
VV
0
S
MH
0 S
MM
_
_
_
_
D
1
D
3
a
_
_
_
_
Y (33)
where S
HH
, S
VV
and S
MM
represent, respectively, the static horizontal, vertical and rocking im-
pedance coecients and S
HM
= S
MH
designates the coupling impedance coecient between the
horizontal and rocking motions of the footing; a, D
1
and D
3
are, respectively, the rotation, and the
horizontal and vertical translations of the rigid footing. The coupling impedance coecient S
HM
will be disregarded in the analysis as its value is small compared to those of the other impedance
coecients. The vertical and horizontal impedance coecients in Eq. (33) are computed by the
proposed model by subdividing the soil layer into thin layers and the variations of these coe-
cients with the layer depth are compared with those obtained from ``BEM'' in Figs. 15 and 16. In
the model analyses (carried out by the computer program developed in this study) the rigidity of
footing is accounted for by choosing large values for its bending and axial rigidities. In the gures,
the ND depth is given by
H =
H
B
(34)
and ND impedance coecients are dened by
(S
HH
Y S
VV
) =
S
HH
l
Y
S
VV
l
_ _
Y (35)
where l is shear modulus of soil layer.
Fig. 14. Strip footing problem.
The model results are obtained when each layer of depth B is subdivided into NS = 20 sub-
layers and parameters are determined through the use of Eq. (24) and Poissons ratio is taken to
be m = 0X2. Figs. 15 and 16 show, respectively, the variation of vertical and horizontal impedance
coecients with the depth of soil layer. From the gures one can see that model results are fairly
close to those of BEM.
Fig. 15. Variation of vertical impedance with depth.
Fig. 16. Variation of horizontal impedance with depth.
6.3. Problem 3: soil response under a rigid strip footing
As in Problem 2, here we consider a rigid strip footing of width B which lies on the top surface
of an elastic layer of depth H (see Fig. 17). The base of the layer is rigid. The system is referred to
a rectangular x
i
-frame in which the (x
1
x
2
) plane coincides with the top surface of the layer and x
3
axis is directed downwards. The strip footing is subjected, along its center line, a vertical uniform
line load P as shown in the gure. In the analysis, we ignore the thickness of the footing.
The object in this problem is to determine the soil reaction underneath the footing by using the
proposed model and compare it with that obtained by the BEM. We do the computations in terms
of ND variables by choosing
H =
H
B
= 4
and Poissons ratio m = 0X2. The model parameters are determined through the use of Eqs. (24). In
the model analyses (carried out by the computer program developed in this study) the rigidity of
footing is accounted for by assigning a large value for its bending rigidity. The soil reaction
distribution is obtained by the model through the subdivision of the soil layer into
NS = 1Y 2Y 8Y 32Y 64 (36)
sublayers and is compared with BEM results in Fig. 18. In the gure, ND horizontal coordinate x
1
is given by
x
1
=
x
1
B
(37)
Fig. 17. Rigid strip footing.
and ND soil reaction " p is dened by
p =
pB
P
(38)
in which p is the soil pressure acting on the footing. The gure shows that as the number of
subdivisions NS, used in approximating the layer response, increases the model prediction for the
soil reaction distribution approaches that obtained by BEM, and that the model is capable to
describe the singularities in the soil pressure along the edges of the rigid strip footing.
6.4. Problem 4: one-storey building supported by soil layer
We consider a one-storey building having the dimensions, and material and sectional prop-
erties shown in Fig. 19. The one-storey building has an elastic oor surrounded with beams, which
stands, at its corners on columns supported by rigid square footings. The soil layer overlies a rigid
bedrock. The soilstructure system is referred to a global X
1
X
2
X
3
coordinate system as shown in
the gure, where X
1
X
2
coincides with the top surface of the layer and X
3
axis is directed upwards.
The object in this problem is to analyze the soilstructure system, described above, under the
inuence of some loadings by the developed computer program (which is based on the proposed
model) and compare the results with those of SAP90 [15].
SAP90 is a widely used structural analysis program and it can accommodate discrete springs on
any point of structure. Using this program one can model soil with discrete springs as in Winkler
Model. For the purpose of comparing our program (based on the proposed model) with a
software which is practically used by engineers, this problem is chosen.
In the analysis by the proposed model, the soil layer is divided into NS=4 sublayers which
implies that each thin layer has a depth of
h =
H
NS
= 0X5 mX (39)
Fig. 18. Soil response distribution under strip footing.
Fig. 19. Soilstructure system considered in Problem 4.
The model parameters can be obtained through the use of Eqs. (24), in view of soil properties
given in Fig. 19 and Eq. (39), as
K
v
= 53333X3 kNam
3
Y C
v
= 2500 kNamY
K
h
= 20000 kNam
3
Y C
h
= 5000 kNamY S = 4166X67 kNamX
(40)
In the analyses performed by the model, the oor and footings of the system are modelled as rigid
diaphragms. The network used in the analysis by the proposed model is shown in Fig. 20.
In the analysis by SAP90, we put springs at the lower ends A, B, C and D of the columns (see
Fig. 19) to describe the inuence of the soil on the response of the structure. Each of the column
ends A, B, C and D have six springs associated with its three translational and three rotational
DOFs. In the present analysis these spring constants are determined through the use of BEM by
considering a square rigid footing of side 1 m overlying on an elastic layer of depth 2 m. Their
computed values are:
K
x
= K
y
= 37800 kNam (translational springs in X
1
and X
2
directions )Y
K
z
= 28400 kNam (translational spring in X
3
direction)Y
a
x
= a
y
= 6200 kN marad (rotational springs about X
1
and X
2
axes)Y
a
z
= 4780 kN marad (rotational spring about X
3
axis)X
(41)
It may be noted that, in computing these spring constants, the interactions between the footings
are ignored.
In this problem, we analyze the soilstructure system under consideration for three dierent
loadings. They are:
Loading 1: A 10 kN horizontal concentrated force in X
1
direction is applied to the master point
of the oor which is chosen to be at the centroid of the oor (joint number 527 in Fig. 20).
Loading 2: A 100 kN vertical concentrated force is applied to the joint 442 in Fig. 20 (which
acts on the column A in Fig. 19).
Loading 3: A 100 kN vertical concentrated force is applied to the joint 462, and at the same
time, a 10 kN horizontal concentrated force in X
1
direction and a 7.5 kN m moment about X
3
axis
are applied to the master point of the oor (joint number 527 in Fig. 20).
6.4.1. Loading 1
As stated previously, this loading involves a 10 kN horizontal concentrated force in X
1
di-
rection applied to the master point of the oor (joint 527 in Fig. 20 which is at the centroid of the
oor).
In this loading, we study only the rotations (about vertical axis, X
3
) of the footings produced
by the aforementioned applied horizontal force.
SAP90 results yield no rotations for the footings, which may be anticipated in view of the
symmetry of the structure and of the fact that we ignore the interaction between the footings in
SAP90 analysis. On the other hand, as the proposed model permits the footings to interact with
each other, it predicts the rotations of the footings as sketched in Fig. 21 showing that the front
(A, B) and rear (C, D) footings rotate in opposite directions of the amount
h
3
= 0X2872 10
5
radX (42)
Fig. 20. Finite element network used in Problem 4.
To check the order of the amount of rotation in Eq. (42), we approximate the layer by a half-
space and consider the top surface on which four horizontal loads (in X
1
direction) of 2.5 kN are
acting at the points A, B, C, D (see Fig. 19). The rotation at one of these points can be obtained
by computing, through the use of Cerrutis solution [21], the rotation at that point produced by
the horizontal forces at the other points and superposing the results. The rotational distortion of
the footings obtained using this procedure is
h
3
= 0X2990 10
5
rad (43)
which is slightly higher than that in Eq. (42) (which was found by the model). This small dierence
may be expected in view of the fact that the value in Eq. (43) is obtained for a half-space while the
supporting soil medium in our soilstructure system is a layer of thickness 2 m.
6.4.2. Loading 2
A 100 kN concentrated vertical force is applied at the joint 442 in Fig. 20 (on the column A).
We analyze this system by the computer program developed in this study and SAP90 and
compare the results in Tables 1 and 2, where E designates the relative error between SAP90 and
model results dened by
E =
[V
model
V
SAP
[
Max[V
SAP
[
Y (44)
Fig. 21. Rotational distortion of footings.
where V
model
and V
SAP
are element forces computed, respectively, by model and SAP90, and
Max[V
SAP
[ is the absolutely maximum value of V
SAP
obtained by considering the whole system. A
study of Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the results obtained by SAP90 and model do not dier
much, implying that the interaction between the footings may be ignored with respect to the
element forces for the problem under consideration.
6.4.3. Loading 3
In this loading case, a 100 kN vertical concentrated force is applied to the joint 462, and at the
same time, a 10 kN horizontal concentrated force in X
1
direction and a 7.5 kN m moment about
X
3
axis are applied to the master point of the oor (joint number 527 in Fig. 20).
The comparison of some column and beam element forces obtained by the model and SAP90
are given in Tables 3 and 4. Studying the relative error E, we see that, for the reason stated for
Loading 2, the two results do not dier much for this loading too.
Table 3
Column element forces (Loading 3)
Element # Node # Moment
(kN m)
Shear
(kN)
Normal
(kN)
Torsional moment
(kN m)
SAP Model E
(%)
SAP Model E
(%)
SAP Model E
(%)
SAP Model E
(%)
1 133 )1.25 )0.08 8 1.94 2.77 11 )54.6 )55.4 1 0.12 0.10 16
442 7.07 8.38 9
2 141 )7.59 )9.81 15 )7.61 )8.20 8 )20.6 )20.0 1 0.12 0.10 16
450 )15.2 )14.8 3
3 301 )2.15 )2.26 1 )0.73 )0.64 1 )15.3 )15.4 1 0.12 0.10 16
514 )0.04 )0.35 2
4 309 )4.05 )5.20 8 )3.60 )3.93 4 )9.93 )9.26 1 0.12 0.10 16
522 )6.75 )6.60 1
Table 1
Column element forces (Loading 2)
Element # Node # Moment (kN m) Shear (kN) Normal (kN)
SAP Model E (%) SAP Model E (%) SAP Model E (%)
1 133 )0.14 )0.36 10 )0.71 )0.41 42 )96.4 )97.4 1
442 2.26 1.58 30
2 141 )1.07 )0.89 8 0.71 0.52 27 )2.77 )1.93 1
450 )1.04 )0.68 16
3 301 0.14 0.20 2 )0.70 )0.63 10 )2.77 )1.93 1
514 2.24 1.70 24
4 309 )1.07 )0.87 9 0.70 0.51 27 1.96 1.39 1
522 )1.02 )0.67 16
Table 2
Beam element forces (Loading 2)
Element # Node # SAP Model E (%)
1 442 2.25 1.57 30
8 450 2.26 1.69 25
9 514 )1.14 )0.74 18
16 522 )1.14 )0.75 17
7. Conclusions
In the study, rst a model is proposed for layered soil foundations; then, based on this soil
foundation model, a nite element model is proposed for the three-dimensional SSI analysis.
Now, in what follows, we repeat some important points which are already stated in the previous
sections and draw some conclusions from the ndings of the study:
(a) In the study, the model parameters are obtained through the match of dynamic stiness
matrices of a sublayer as determined from the exact theory and the model. Alternatively, it is also
possible to determine the soil model parameters via optimization, which involves selection of a
base problem and tting, through optimization, the model and exact responses for that base
problem. This alternative approach may be the subject of a future study.
(b) As noted in Problem 4 of Section 6, the model proposed in the study for SSI analysis
accommodates not only the interaction between the structure and soil; but, also the interaction
between the footings. This makes the proposed model general and suitable for the analysis of
structures having multiple footings or a mat foundation, etc.
(c) In the proposed model, we use the rigid diaphragm assumption for both the oors and
footings, each footing having a separate master point. The use of the rigid diaphragm assumption
for footings facilitates the connection of the structure to the soil foundation.
(d) The model accommodates the layered structure of the soil foundation through the repre-
sentation of sublayers by unit cells each having dierent model parameters.
(e) The results of Loading 2 in Problem 4 of Section 6 indicate that the interaction between the
footings may be ignored, with respect to the element forces, for the one-storey structure analyzed
in that problem. We think that this result is due to the symmetry of the one-storey structure. We
expect that the footingfooting interaction eects may become important for a general non-
symmetric structure, in particular, in dynamic analysis. We plan to study this aspect of interaction
analysis in future.
(f) As stated previously, SAP90 can be used in SSI analysis only when the structure has rigid
footings, not continuous beam or mat foundations. Under these conditions, in order to use SAP90
in the interaction analysis, we rst determine the spring constants for each of the footings using
``BEM''; then, attaching these springs to the base levels of the columns, we analyze the structure.
We note that this kind of analysis ignores the footingfooting interaction eects. In view of the
arguments given above, we can summarize the shortcomings of using SAP90 in SSI analysis as:
1. it can be used only if the structure has rigid footings,
2. it requires a separate analysis by ``BEM'', and
3. it ignores the footingfooting interaction eects.
The model proposed in this study eliminates all these shortcomings.
Table 4
Beam element forces (Loading 3)
Element # Node # Moment (kN m) Torsional moment (kN m)
SAP Model E (%) SAP Model E (%)
1 442 )1.14 )2.48 7 5.85 5.89 1
4 445 17.95 17.53 2 )2.12 )2.16 1
8 450 12.79 12.34 2 2.70 2.71 0
9 514 2.47 2.15 2 )1.69 )1.76 1
11 516 4.60 4.39 1 )0.41 )0.45 1
16 522 4.55 4.46 1 )2.0 )1.96 1
20 469 16.68 16.40 2 2.31 2.33 1
27 477 )4.14 )4.04 1 )0.56 )0.58 1
(g) The model is proposed for the three-dimensional dynamic SSI analysis; but, the computer
software, as stated above, is developed for static case. The program will be extended to dynamic
case in a future study.
References
[1] J.P. Wolf, Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1985.
[2] J.P. Wolf, SoilStructure Interaction Analysis in Time Domain, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1988.
[3] R.W. Clough, J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, second ed., McGraw-Hill, Tokyo, 1993.
[4] J. Lysmer, T. Udaka, C. Tsai, H.B. Seed, FLUSH: a computer program for approximate 3D dynamic analysis of
soilstructure problems, Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
Report No. EERC75-30, 1975.
[5] S. Gupta, T.W. Lin, J. Penzien, C.S. Yeh, Hybrid modelling of soilstructure interaction, Report of Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No UCB/EERC-80/09, 1980.
[6] A. Gomez-Masso, J. Lysmer, J.-C. Chen, H.B. Seed, Soil structure interaction in dierent seismic environments,
Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No UCB/EERC-
79/18, 1979.
[4] J.A. Gutierrez, Substructure method for earthquake analysis of structure-soil interaction, Report of Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No EERC 76-9, 1976.
[8] J.W. Meek, J.P. Wolf, Cone models for homogenous soil, part I, J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (1992) 667.
[9] J.W. Meek, J.P. Wolf, Cone models for homogenous soil, part II, J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (1992) 686.
[10] J.P. Wolf, W. Meek, Cone models for a soil layer on a exible rock half-space, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 22
(1993) 185.
[11] E. Kausel, J.M. Roesset, Stiness matrices for layered soils, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71 (1981) 1743.
[12] A. Ghali, A.M. Neville, Structural Analysis, Chapman and Hall, London, 1978.
[13] E. Winkler, Die Lehre von Der Elastizitaet und Festigkeit, Dominiqus, Prag, 1867.
[14] G. Dhatt, G. Touzot, G. Cantin, The Finite Element Method Displayed, Wiley, Canada, 1985.
[15] E.L. Wilson, A. Habibullah, SAP90 Structural Analysis Programs, Computers and Structures, Berkeley, CA,
1984.
[16] Y. Mengi, A.H. Tanrikulu, A.K. Tanrikulu, Boundary Element Method for Elastic Media: An Introduction,
METU Publications, Ankara, 1994.
[17] P.K. Banerjee, The Boundary Element Method in Engineering, McGraw-Hill, London, 1994.
[18] G.D. Manolis, D.E. Beskos, Boundary Element Method in Elastodynamics, Unwin Hyman, London, 1987.
[19] A.A. Becker, The Boundary Element Method in Engineering: A Complete Course, McGraw-Hill, London, 1992.
[20] J. Trevelyan, Boundary Elements for Engineers: Theory and Applications, Computational Mechanics Publica-
tions, Southampton-Boston, 1994.
[21] Y.C. Fung, Foundations of Solid Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1965.

2000 A Simple Soil-Structure Interaction Model. Kocak, Mengi

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2000 A Simple Soil-Structure Interaction Model. Kocak, Mengi

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A simple soilstructure interaction model

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi