Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

8. Procedures for Including Soil-Structure flexible vertical elements (e.g.

, moment
Interaction Effects frames) are often not significantly affected
8.1 Introduction by SSI.
This chapter presents simplified procedures Figure 8-1b illustrates the incorporation of
for including the effects of interaction foundation flexibility into the structural
between a structure and the supporting soils model directly. ATC-40 and FEMA 356
in a structural model for nonlinear static include provisions for estimating the
analysis procedures. There are three flexibility and strength of the foundation
primary categories of soil-structure (i.e., the properties of the springs indicated
interaction (SSI) effects. These include: in Figure 8-1b) in a structural model for
• introduction of flexibility to the soil- inelastic analysis. Those provisions
foundation system (flexible foundation normally use the free-field motion as the
effects), seismic demand with 5% damping as the
• filtering of the ground motions transmitted conventional initial value. This approach is
to the structure (kinematic effects), and capable of modeling both the structural and
• dissipation of energy from the soil- geotechnical (soil) components of the
structure system through radiation and foundation. The result is that the response
hysteretic soil damping (foundation of the overall structural system includes
damping effects). deformations (elastic and
Current analysis procedures in FEMA 356 inelastic) in the structural and geotechnical
and ATC-40 partially address the flexible parts of the foundation system. These
foundation effect through guidance on deformations are sometimes referred to as
including the stiffness and strength of the an inertial SSI effect. These improvements
geotechnical (soil) components of the in modeling can lead to significant
foundation in the structural analysis model. departures from fixed-base results and more
However, these procedures do not address accurate representation of probable
the reduction of the shaking demand on the structural response. Compared with the
structure relative to the free-field motion fixed-base modeling approach, the
caused by kinematic interaction or the predicted period of the structure lengthens,
foundation damping effect. the distribution of forces among various
Guidance on including these effects in elements changes, the sequence of
NSPs is provided in this section. A simple inelasticity and the modes of inelastic
example illustrates the application of these behavior can change, and foundation
procedures. Appendix E provides detailed mechanisms (e.g., rocking, soil bearing
information on these soil-structure failure, and pier/pile slip) can be directly
interaction effects. Figure 8-1a illustrates evaluated and considered. All of these
the assumption that the structural model is effects result in more realistic evaluation of
mounted on a rigid base that is excited by the probable structural behavior and
the free field motion. The free-field motion performance.
is the theoretical movement of a single Figure 8-1c illustrates the filtering effects
point on the surface of the ground, that soilstructure interaction can have on
assuming that there is no structure near it. the character and intensity of ground
The fixed-base modeling assumption is motion experienced by the structural
inappropriate for many structures though. model. Kinematic interaction results from
Structural systems that incorporate stiff the presence of relatively stiff foundation
vertical elements for lateral resistance (e.g., elements on or in soil that cause foundation
shear walls, braced frames) can be motions to deviate from free-field motions.
particularly sensitive to even small base Two effects are commonly identified: base
rotations and translations that are neglected slab averaging and embedment effects. The
with a fixed base assumption. Relatively base slab averaging effect can be visualized
by recognizing that the instantaneous the ASCE-7 Standard for Minimum Design
motion that would have occurred in absence Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
of the structure within and below its (ASCE, 2002) include procedures to
footprint is not the same at every point. account for this effect when using linear
Placement of a structure and foundation analysis procedures. Section 8.3
across these spatially variable motions incorporates similar, although updated,
produces an averaging effect in which the procedures for use with NSPs. In the
overall motion is less than the localized procedure, the foundation damping is
maxima that would have occurred in the linked to the ratio of the fundamental period
free field. The embedment effect is of the system on the flexible foundation to
associated with the reduction of ground that of a fixed-base model. Other factors
motion that tends to occur with depth in a affecting foundation damping are the
soil deposit. Both base-slab averaging and foundation size and embedment. The
embedment affect the character of the foundation damping is combined with the
foundation level motion (sometimes called conventional initial structural damping to
the foundation input motion, or FIM) in a generate a revised damping ratio for the
manner that is independent of the entire system, including the structure,
superstructure (i.e., the portion of the foundation, and soil. This system damping
structure above the foundation), with one ratio then modifies the foundation input
exception. The effects are strongly period- motion imparted to the system model as
dependent, being maximized at small seismic shaking demand.
periods. The effects can be visualized as a 8.2 Procedures for Kinematic Effects
filter applied to the high-frequency (short- The ground motions imposed at the
period) components of the free-field ground foundation of a structure can differ from
motion. The impact of those effects on those in the free field due to averaging of
superstructure response will tend to be variable ground motions across the
greatest for short-period buildings. A foundation slab, wave scattering, and
simplified procedure to apply these embedment effects. These effects are
principles for reduction of the spectral referred to here as kinematic interaction
amplitudes of the free field motion to effects, and they tend to be important for
generate the FIM spectrum is presented in buildings with relatively short fundamental
Section 8.2. The foundation input motion periods (i.e., periods < ∼ 0.5 s), large plan
can be applied to a fixed-base model or, as dimensions, or basements embedded 10
depicted in Figure 8-1c, can be combined feet or more in soil materials. This section
with a flexible-base model. presents procedures to account for
Figure 8-1d illustrates foundation damping kinematic effects on building structures. A
effects that are another result of inertial ratio of response spectra (RRS) factor can
soil-structure interaction in addition to be used to represent kinematic interaction
foundation flexibility. Foundation damping effects. An RRS is simply the ratio of the
results from the relative movements of the response spectral ordinates imposed on the
foundation and the supporting soil. It is foundation (i.e., the foundation input
associated with radiation of energy away motion, FIM) to the free-field spectral
from the foundation and hysteretic damping ordinates. Two phenomena should be
within the soil. The result is an effective considered in evaluating RRS: base slab
decrease in the spectral ordinates of ground averaging and foundation embedment, both
motion experienced by the structure. of which are introduced in the preceding
Although seldom used in practice the section. Baseslab averaging occurs to some
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for extent in virtually all buildings. The slab-
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and averaging effect occurs at the foundation
Other Structures (BSSC, 2000),1 as well as level for mats or spread footings
interconnected by either grade beams or taken as average value of velocity to a depth
reinforced concrete slabs. Even if a laterally of be below foundation (ft/s)
stiff foundation system is not present, n = shear wave velocity reduction factor for
averaging can occur at the first elevated the expected PGA as estimated from Table
level of buildings with rigid diaphragms. 8-1.
The only case in which base-slab averaging
effects should be neglected is in buildings 4. Evaluate the product of RRSbsa times
without a laterally connected foundation RRSe to obtain the total RRS for each
system and with flexible floor and roof period of interest. The spectral ordinate of
diaphragms. Foundation embedment the foundation input motion at each period
effects should be considered for buildings is the product of the free field spectrum and
with basements. Such effects should not be the total RRS.
considered for buildings without
basements, even if the footings are Table 8-1 Approximate Values of Shear
embedded. Embedment effects tend to be
significant when the depth of basements is 5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 for other periods
greater than about 10 feet. The following if desired to generate a complete spectrum
simplified procedure (adapted from Kim for the foundation input motion (FIM). If
and Stewart (2003) and other sources) is desired, more detailed procedures can also
recommended for analysis of these two be used, which are described in Appendix
kinematic interaction effects as a function E. Limitations associated with application
of period, T, of the structural model: of this approach include the following, each
1. Evaluate the effective foundation size , of which is explained in Appendix E:
where a and b are the full footprint • Kinematic interaction effects should be
dimensions (in feet) of the building neglected for soft clay sites such as Site
foundation in plan view. Class E.
2. Evaluate the RRS from base-slab • Embedment effects can be neglected for
averaging (RRSbsa) as a function of period foundationsembedded in firm rock (Site
(see Figure 8-2). An approximation to the Classes A and B).
curves in Figure 8-2 is • The base-slab averaging model:
given by the following: a. underestimates reductions in ground
motions for foundation materials that
consist of firm rock (Site Classes A and B).
≥ the value for b. has not been rigorously studied for
T = 0.2 s (8-1) structures without large in-plane stiffness
(continuous mat foundation or footings
3. If the structure has a basement embedded interconnected with a reinforced slab and/or
a depth e from the ground surface, evaluate grade beams); however, it is considered
an additional RRS from embedment (RRSe) reasonable to extend its application to all
as a function of period (see Figure 8-3). The structures except those without both an
curves in Figure 8-3 are described by the interconnected foundation and rigid floor
following: and roof diaphragms.
c. has not been rigorously studied for
the larger of 0.453 or the structures with plan dimensions greater
RRSe value for T = 0.2 s. (8-2) than 200 ft.; however, it is considered
reasonable to extend the application to
where these conditions, provided that the
e = foundation embedment (in feet) foundation elements are laterally
vs = shear wave velocity for site soil connected.
conditions,
d. has not been rigorously studied for foundation modeling assumptions.
structures with pile-supported foundations; Guidelines for the evaluation of soil spring
however it isconsidered reasonable to stiffnesses are provided in FEMA 356 and
extend application to pile supported ATC-40. In those calculations, the strain-
structures in which the cap andsoil are in degraded shear modulus should be used to
contact or in which the caps are laterally represent the soil stiffness.
connected to one another by a slab or grade 2. Calculate the effective structural stiffness
beams. of the SDOF oscillator for fixed base
8.3 Procedures for Foundation Damping conditions as
Damping related to foundation-soil (8-3)
interaction can significantly supplement where M* is the effective mass for the first
damping that occurs in a structure due to mode calculated as the total mass times the
inelastic action of structural components. effective mass coefficient (see ATC-40
The damping from foundation soil Eqn. 8-21).
interaction is associated with hysteretic 3. Determine the equivalent foundation
behavior of soil(not to be confused with radius for translation as
hysteretic action in structuralcomponents) (8-4)
as well as radiation of energy into the soil where Af is the area of the foundation
from the foundation (i.e., radiation footprint if the foundation components are
damping). These foundation damping inter connected laterally.
effects tend to be important forstiff 4. Calculate the translational stiffness of the
structural systems (e.g., shear walls, braced foundation, Kx. This can be evaluated using
frames), particularly when the foundation the procedures in FEMA 356 (Chapter 4) or
soil is relatively soft (i.e., Site Classes D- ATC-40 (Chapter 10). For many
E). The effects of foundation damping are applications, the translational stiffness can
represented by a modified system-damping be estimated as
ratio. The initial damping ratio for the (8-5)
structure neglecting foundation damping is where G = effective, strain-degraded soil
referred to as βi, and is generally taken as shear modulus (see FEMA 356, Table 4.7)
5%. The damping attributed to foundation- and υ = soil Poisson’s ratio (∼0.3 for sand,
soil interaction alone (i.e., the foundation ∼0.45 for clay).
damping) is referred to as β f. Finally, the 5. Calculate the equivalent foundation
damping ratio of the complete structural radius for rotation, rθ, by first evaluating
system, accounting for foundation-soil the effective rotational stiffness of the
interaction, as well as structural damping, is foundation, Kθ, as
referred to as β0. The change in damping (8-6)
ratio from βi to β0 modifies the elastic Where h* is the effective structure height
response spectrum. The spectral ordinates taken as the full height of the building for
are reduced if β0> βi. A number of factors one-story structures, and as the vertical
influence the foundation damping factor βf distance from the foundation to the centroid
(see Appendix E). Subject to the limitations of the first mode shape for multi-story
noted below, the following simplified structures. In the latter case, h* can often be
procedure can be used to estimate β f and well-approximated as 70% of the total
the subsequent spectral ordinate change due structure height. The quantity Kx is often
to the modified damping ratio of the much larger than K* fixed, in which case an
complete structural system, β0. accurate evaluation of Kx is unnecessary
1. Evaluate the linear periods for the and the ratio, K* fixed/Kx, can be
structural model assuming a fixed base, T, approximated as zero The equivalent
and a flexible base, using appropriate foundation radius for rotation is then
calculated as
(8-7) modification procedures of FEMA 356 and
The soil shear modulus, G, and soil Chapter 5 or the equivalent linearization
Poisson’s ratio, υ, should be consistent with procedures of ATC-40 and Chapter 6. The
those used in the evaluation of foundation ductility demand should be checked against
spring stiffness. the value assumed in Step 7 above. The
6. Determine the basement embedment, e, damping ratios determined in accordance
if applicable. with this section represent radiation
7. Estimate the effective period-lengthening damping effects only. Hysteretic soil
ratio,using the site-specific structural model damping effects are neglected, since
developed for nonlinear pushover analyses. ductility in soil springs is included as part
This period-lengthening ratio is calculated of structural pushover analysis. Limitations
for the structure in its degraded state (i.e., on the damping analysis described above
accounting for structural ductility and soil include the following:
ductility). An expression for the ratio is • The procedure above should not be used
(8-8) when shear walls or braced frames are
where the term μ is the expected ductility spaced sufficiently closely that waves
demand for the system (i.e., including emanating from distinct foundation
structure and soil effects). Thus, the elements will destructively interfere with
ductility must be estimated prior to the each other across the period range of
actual solution and subsequently verified. interest. This can effectively decrease the
8. Evaluate the initial fixed-base damping energy dissipated in thesoil material, and
ratio for the structure ( βi), which is often the above formulation could overestimate
taken as 5%. the related damping. Unfortunately, this
9. Determine foundation damping due to effect has not been investigated sufficiently
radiation damping, βf, based on , e/rx, and to justify definitive limits. In the absence of
h/rθ, using the plots in Figures 8-4 and 8-5. such limits, a reasonable approximation
An approximation to those curves is given might be to neglect the effect of softly-
by the following: coupled foundation components spaced at a
(8-9) distance less than the larger
where βf is in percent and dimension of either component in the
(8-9a) corresponding direction. Further discussion
(8-9b) is presented in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.5.
(8-9c) • The analysis can be conservative
The above equations are most applicable (underpredicting the damping) when
for < 1.5, and generally provide foundation aspect ratios exceed about 2:1.
conservative (low) damping estimates for Further discussion is presented in Appendix
higher . E, Section E.3.1.4.
10. Evaluate the flexible-base damping • The analysis is conservative when
ratio (β0) from βi, βf, and as follows: foundations are deeply embedded, e/rx >
(8-10) 0.5. Further discussion is presented in
11. Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates Appendix E, Section E.3.1.3.
of the change in damping ratio from βi to β0 • The analysis is unconservative
(in accordance with Section 6.3); then (overpredicting the damping) if vsT/rx > 2π
modify the spectrum of the foundation (where vs = average shear wave velocity to
input motion (recall that foundation input a depth of about rx) and the foundation soils
motion is equal to the free-field motion if have significant increases of shear stiffness
kinematic effects are neglected). From this with depth. Further discussion is presented
point, the maximum expected displacement in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.2.
of the nonlinear SDOF oscillator model can • The analysis is unconservative if the
be estimated using the displacement foundation soil profile consists of a soil
layer overlying a very stiff material (i.e.,
there is a pronounced impedance contrast
within the soil profile), and if the system
period is greater than the first-mode period
of the layer. Further discussion is presented
in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.2.