Soil-Structure Interaction

ECIV 724A Fall 2004

SSI – Problem Definition

Earthquake Analysis Rigid

Structures supported by rigid foundations Base
Earthquakes=>Specified motion of base Analysis

Tall Buildings Nuclear Power Plants

Acceptable Wrong Assumption
• Light & Flexible • Massive & Stiff
• Firm Foundations • Soft Soils
• Methods focus on
modeling of structure • Interaction with supporting
• Displacements wrt fixed soils becomes important
base
• Finite Element Methods
 SSI – Problem Definition

Machine Foundation Seismic Excitation

Parameters
• Local Soil Conditions
• Peak Acceleration
• Frequency Content of
Motion
• Proximity to Fault
• Travel Path etc

Inertial Interaction Kinematic Interaction

Inertial forces in structure are Stiffer foundation cannot conform
transmitted to flexible soil to the distortions of soil

TOTAL=INERTIAL + KINEMATIC
 SSI Effects
1.50E-04
Posin( w t)

SSI - Proposed BE-FE

H
1.25E-04 SSI - Spring Dashpot
Model
2b
Proposed BE-FE, Stiff
1.00E-04 Half Space
Soil
Amplitude in ft.

Fixed Base Analysis

7.50E-05

5.00E-05

2.50E-05

0.00E+00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
w/wn
SSI Effects
2.5E-05
U1 SSI - Relative
P(t) m U1 Fixed Base
2.0E-05 U2 SSI - Relative
m
U2 Fixed Base

1.5E-05 Half Space

Horizontal Amplitude

1.0E-05

5.0E-06

0.0E+00
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

-5.0E-06

-1.0E-05
Time x 1.08x10-4 (sec)
Cross Interaction Effects

1. Moment is applied 3. …Reach Receiver…

2. Waves Propagate… 4. …and life goes on…

SSI Effects

 Alter the Natural Frequency of the

Structure

 Add Damping

 Through the Soil Interaction Effects

 Traveling Wave Effects

Methods of Analysis

Objective:

Given the earthquake ground

motions that would occur on the
surface of the ground in the
absence of the structure (control or
design motions), find the dynamic
response of the structure.
Methods of Analysis

Methods

Complete Idealized

Direct MultiStep
 Complete Interaction Analysis

High Degree of Complexity

• Account for the variation of soil properties with depth.

• Consider the material nonlinear behavior of the soil
• Consider the 3-D nature of the problem
• Consider the nature of the wave propagation which
produced the ground motion
• Consider possible interaction with adjacent structures.
Idealized Interaction Analysis
Idealization

Horizontal Layers
Simplified Wave Mechanisms
etc
Idealized Interaction Analysis
Preliminary description of free field motion
before any structure has been built

The definition of the motion itself

the control motion in terms of response spectra,
acceleration records etc

The location of the control motion

free surface, soil-rock interface

The generation mechanism at the control

point vertically or obliquely incident SH or SV waves,
Rayleigh waves, etc.
 Idealized Analysis
Idealized Interaction Analysis
Tools: FEM, BEM, FDE, Analytical solutions
MultiStep Methods
Evaluation of Dynamic Response
in Several Steps
Direct Methods
Evaluation of Dynamic SUPERPOSITION
Response in a Single
Step • Two-Step
Kinematic+Inertia Interaction
True Nonlinear
Solutions
• Three-Step
Rigid Foundations
Lumped Parameter Models

• Substructure
Division to Subsystems
Equilibrium & Compatibility
Finite Element Method (FEM)

Governing Equation
t   Cu t   Ku t   f t 
Mu

Solution Techniques

• Modal Analysis
• Direct Integration
• Fourier Analysis - Complex Response
FEM Solution Techniques

Selection Criteria Cost and Feasibility

Paramount Consideration Accuracy

Differences

- Handling of Damping
- Ability to Handle High Frequency
Components of Motion
FEM - Modal Analysis

 Damping is neglected during early stages

 Actual displacements are damped

 Damping is considered in arbitrary manner

 Structural Dynamics: First few modes need to be evaluated

(<20)

 SSI: Acceleration response spectra over a large frequency

range and large number of modes need to be considered
(>150)

 Not recommended for Direct SSI - Stiff Massive Structure Soft

Soil

 OK for Substructure
FEM - Direct Integration
 Time Marching Schemes
Newmark’s Methods, WilsonJ Methods, Bathe and Wilson
Cubic Inertia Method
 Small Time Step for Accuracy
 Stability and Convergence
 Choice of Damping Matrix
 Frequency Dependent Damping Ratio - filters out high
frequency components
 Proportional Damping
 Good Choice if True Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis
is feasible
FEM - Complex Response

 Fourier Transformation - Transfer

Functions
 Transfer Functions Independent of
External Excitation
 Control of Accuracy
 Efficient
 Only Linear or Pseudo non-linear analysis
FEM - Geometric Modeling
FEM Modeling

Max Element Size Governed by Highest frequency

which must be transmitted correctly within the
element

1
 8 s Lumped Mass Matrix

1
hmax   s Consistent Mass Matrix
8
 1 s Mixed Mass Matrix

5
FEM Modeling of Infinite Space
FEM Modeling of Infinite Space
Modeling Introduces Artificial Boundaries that
Reflect Waves
FEM Modeling of Infinite Soil

 Absorbing Boundaries
 Viscous Boundary
 Variable Depth Method
 Damping proportional to Wave Velocities

 Radiating Boundaries (Hyperelements)

 Satisfy Boundary Conditions at Infinity
 Eigenvalue Analysis
 Frequency Domain Analysis
 SSI – FEM Methods

FEM

Advantages
• Non-Linear Analysis
• Well Established

Shortcomings
• Finite Domains
• Volume
Discretizations
Boundary Element Methods

Governing Equation

 Small Displacement
Field
 Homogeneous
 Isotropic
 Elastic

c
2
1
2
2 
 c ui ,ij  c u j ,ii  f j  uj
2
2
Boundary Element Method

GOVERNING EQUATION
Dynamic Reciprocal
Theorem

BOUNDARY INTEGRAL EQUATION

DIRECT Indirect

Transform Domain TIME DOMAIN

Dirac- Step Impulse B-SPLINE

System of Algebraic Equations

Time Marching Scheme
Boundary Element Method

BOUNDARY INTEGRAL EQUATION

B-SPLINE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTIONS

SPATIAL DISCRETIZATION
TEMPORAL DISCRETIZATION

BOUNDARY INTEGRAL EQUATION IN A DISCRETE FORM

TIME MARCHING SCHEME &

B-SPLINE IMPULSE RESPONSE

RESPONSE TO ARBITRARY EXCITATION

N 1
u  B f
N n N n  2
 Ff  H N N
n 1
BEM – Methods

BEM

Advantages
• Infinite Media
• Surface Discretization

Shortcomings
• Non-symmetric
matrices
• Not Efficient for
Nonlinear
SSI Methods

Combined BEM-FEM
eliminate disadvantages of each method
and retain advantages

Approach
• FEM Approach
• BEM Approach
• Staggered Solutions
Governing Equations

t   Cu t  
Mu
Kut   f t 

c
2
1  c u
2
2 i ,ij  c u j ,ii  f j  uj
2
2
FEM Method
Time Marching Scheme
Governing Equation
t   Cu t   Kut   f t 
Mu

Discrete Form in Time

N
Du  f
N
FEM-BEM Coupling
Staggered Solutions

FEM
N
Du N
FEM f FEM

BEM
uN
BEM  FfN
BEM H N

Can be Solved in a Staggered Approach...

FEM-BEM Coupling
Staggered Solutions
At Every Time Step...

Equilibrium of Forces
at Interface
f int
BEM f FEMint

External
Excitation
BEM FEM External
Excitation
Solver Solver
int int
u BEM u FEM
Compatibility of Displacements
at Interface
FEM-BEM Coupling
Advantages

 Independent Solutions for BEM and

FEM
 Independent Time Step Selection
 Smaller Systems of Equations
 BEM System of Reduced Size
 In the Absence of Incidence
Displacement Field in Soil, BEM does
not require Solution.
Lumped Parameter Models for SSI

P(t) m P (t) m

Half Space

Stick Model Spring-Dashpot Model

Lumped Parameter Foundation Models

Reissner (1936) Analytic Solutions to Vertical

Vibration of Circular Footing Due to Harmonic
Excitation

Assumptions:
Elastic ½-space
Material G,v,r
Uniform Vertical Pressure

Formed Basis of Almost All Analytical

Studies
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models

Quinlan and Sung

Assumed Different Pressure Distributions

Richart & Whitman

Effects of Poisson’

Bycroft (1956)
Displacement Functions

Hsieh
K and C in terms of Soil and Foundation
Parameters
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models

Lysmer Analog
Constant Lumped Parameters

Richart Hall & Wood(1970)

Gazetas (1983)

Wolf (1988)
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models

Representative Lumped Parameter Values - Square

Lumped Parameter Foundation Models
Representative Lumped Parameter Values Circular

Mode K C B D

Vertical 4Gro 3 .4 2 1 n m 0.425

ro rG
(z) 1 n  1 n 4 rro3 Bz

Sliding 8Gro 4.6 2 2 n m 0.288

ro rG
(x) 2 n  2 n 8 rro3 Bx

Rocking 8Gro3 0.8ro4 rG 31 n  I 0.15

() 31  n  1 n 1  B  8 rro5 1  B  B

Torsional 6Gro3 4 BrG I 0.5

() 3 1  2 B  rro5 1  2 B 
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models

Stehmeyer and Rizos (2003)

The Real System Equivalent SDOF System

wn  K M
  c 2mw n
Properties k, and c are known to be frequency (w) dependent
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models

Horizontal Displacement with Horizontal Impulse Applied

0.020
Discrete BEM Solution
0.018
Simplified Closed Form Solution
0.016

0.014

0.012

B(t)
Displacement

0.010 wn = 3.3 z

0.008  = 0.975
B(t) y

0.006
x 2b

0.004 Half Space

0.002

0.000
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00
-0.002
Time
 SSI Effects
1.50E-04
Posin( w t)

SSI - Proposed BE-FE

H
1.25E-04 SSI - Spring Dashpot
Model
2b
Proposed BE-FE, Stiff
1.00E-04 Half Space
Soil
Amplitude in ft.

Fixed Base Analysis

7.50E-05

5.00E-05

2.50E-05

0.00E+00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
w/wn
SSI Effects
2.5E-05
U1 SSI - Relative
P(t) m U1 Fixed Base
2.0E-05 U2 SSI - Relative
m
U2 Fixed Base

1.5E-05 Half Space

Horizontal Amplitude

1.0E-05

5.0E-06

0.0E+00
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

-5.0E-06

-1.0E-05
Time x 1.08x10-4 (sec)
SSI Effects
Based on the Simplified Lumped Parameter
Models it can be shown that

~ 2
P (t) m
T k kh
 1 
T kh k

Longer Period of Foundation-Structure System

SSI Effects – Cross Interaction

Source Foundation
Receiver Foundation
 SSI Effects – Cross Interaction
2.5E-10

Source M=10
Receiver M=10
2.0E-10 Source M=5
Receiver M=5
Horizontal Amplitude  1

Source M=1
Receiver M=1
1.5E-10
Source Foundation
Receiver Foundation

1.0E-10

5.0E-11

0.0E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Dimensionless Frequency a o
SSI Effects – Cross Interaction
2.5E-10

Source Foundation
d/a=0.25
2.0E-10
d/a=1.00
d/a=2.00
Horizontal Amplitude

d/a=3.00
1.5E-10 Receiver Foundation
d/a=0.25
d/a=1.00
d/a=2.00
1.0E-10
d/a=3.00
Source Foundation
Receiver Foundation

5.0E-11

0.0E+00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
Dimensionless Frequency ao
Traveling Wave Effects

After Betti et al.

Traveling Wave Effects

After Betti et al.

 Traveling Wave Effects

After Betti et al.

Traveling Wave Effects

After Betti et al.

SH-Waves

After Betti et al.

P-Waves

After Betti et al.

SV-Waves

After Betti et al.

Rayleigh Waves

After Betti et al.

Traveling Wave Effects
 Inertia Effects were Not Important but yet
SSI significantly affects the response

 Asynchronous Motion Excite

Antisymmetric Vibration Modes

 SSI effects cannot be ignored

After Betti et al.