DYNAMIC SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON RC

STRUCTURES RESTING ON GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SOIL

B.R. Jayalekshmi
Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering , NITK , Surathkal, email:br.jaya@gmail.com
Deepthi Poojary V.G., R.Shivashankar, Katta Venkataramana

Abstract
Structures are generally assumed to be fixed at their bases in the process of analysis and
design under dynamic loading. But the consideration of actual support flexibility reduces the
overall stiffness of the structure and increases the period of the system. Considerable change
in spectral acceleration with natural period is observed from the response spectrum curve.
Thus the change in natural period may alter the seismic response of the structure
considerably. In this study the dynamic characteristics of the three dimensional structure-
foundation-soil system of a building model is studied by time history analysis using Elcentro
ground motion record. The soft soil and soil reinforced with ‘Tensar’ geogrids placed in
three layers below the foundation is considered. Finite element analysis of the integrated
system is carried out using FEM software. The soil is characterized by its stiffness, mass
density, and poisson’s ratio and the geogrids by stiffness, mass density and thickness. The
change in the dynamic characteristics of the structure due to the incorporation of the effect
of flexibility of soil and the effect of reinforced soil is noted. The time histories of
displacement and base shear are presented and the variation in structural seismic response
for various parameters is compared to that of a fixed base structure.
Key Words: Dynamic soil structure interaction, time history analysis, geogrid

INTRODUCTION

The dynamic characteristics of a structural system gets modified when the supporting
medium of soil is also considered as an integral part of the structure rather compared to those
with the conventional completely restrained supports. This is reflected as the significant
modification of stress components and deflections in the structural system from the expected
behavior of the system on a rigid supporting foundation. This is termed as the interaction of
soil with the structure that it supports and generally called as dynamic soil structure
interaction [7]. Soil is capable of providing very high strength in compression, but virtually
no strength in tension [3]. In civil engineering applications, soil usually fails in shear. Like
other construction materials with limited strength, soil can be reinforced with foreign material
to form a composite material that has increased shear strength and some apparent tensile
strength [3]. Reinforced soil is a construction technique that consists of soil that has been
strengthened by tensile elements such as metal strips, geotextiles, or geogrids [3]. These
geosynthetics placed under foundations can absorb seismic energy, and hence transmit
smaller ground motions to an overlying structure. Documented case histories of seismic field
performance of reinforced soil structures showed that reinforced soil slopes and walls tend to
perform well under earthquake loading[8,9]. However, field reports point out a lack of
monitoring in practice, making it difficult to validate seismic design assumptions. The main
objective of this study is to evaluate the dynamic soil structure interaction effects of
reinforced soil for soft soil condition and to determine the deformations and seismic response
quantities under seismic loading as compared with the fixed base condition.

IDEALIZATION OF THE SYSTEM

Structural idealization

The building frame elements have been idealized as three dimensional space frames
consisting of two nodded 3D beam elements with 6 DOF at each node called BEAM4.The
Slabs are modeled with four nodded plate element with 6 DOF at each node, called SHELL
63. The foundation, which supports the superstructure, is also discretized as 4 nodded plate –
bending element, SHELL 63. The element has bending and membrane capabilities, both in-
plane and normal loads are permitted. The behavior of superstructure and foundation is
assumed as elastic and is modeled using two parameters, the modulus of elasticity E and
poisson’s ratio ν. Structural members are considered to be reinforced concrete of grade
M20.Value of E is taken as 22.36 GPa, ν is taken as 0.15 and density of concrete as 25
kN/m3. The bay length of the building is taken as 4.0 m and height as 3 m for all the cases.
Sizes of beams and columns as 230mm x 400 mm. Thickness of slab is taken as 150mm and
wall as 230mm with density of 20 kN/m3.The geometric sizes and loadings on the frames
have been arrived on the basis of general requirement confirming to design code [4,5, 6].The
live load is taken as 3 kN/m2. Square footing of size 2m x 2m with 500mm thickness is
considered for all structures. The frames considered here are one bay and two bay structures
with one storey designated as 1x1x1 and 2x2x1 with fixed base and resting on soil with and
without reinforcement.

Idealization of soil

The structures are assumed to be resting on soft soil designated as soil20 with E value of
20000 kN/m2, and a poisson’s ratio of 0.3 is considered. The bearing capacity and density of
the soil are taken as 200 kN/m2 and 18 kN/m3. The soil is assumed to be linear, elastic and
isotropic material. Width of soil mass beyond the outermost footing is considered as 4 B and
depth as 8B, where B is the width of isolated footing [2]. Soil is discretized using 8 nodded
brick element solid 45 with 3 DOF at each node. 5% of the critical damping is considered for
the whole system.

Geometric parameters and Idealization of geogrid

In this study, the soil is reinforced with 3 layers of geogrid designated as reinforced soil20
with the vertical spacing between the consecutive geogrid layers are h equal to 0.5 m. The top
layer of geogrid is located at a depth u equal to 0.5 m measured from the bottom of the
foundation. The width of the geogrid reinforcements under the foundation is calculated as b
equal to the total footing area and extending a distance of B i.e. width of footing, beyond the
outermost footing . The depth of reinforcement, d, below the bottom of the foundation can be
given as d = u + (N-1) B where N is the number of layers of geogrid [3]. As shown in the
fig1.The specification of the geogrid considered is ‘Tensar’ SR2. Its tensile strength taken as
150 kN/m with 2% strain and thickness of 1.2 mm with weight of 0.85 kg/m2 . The geogrid
elements have been idealized as 4 nodded plate element, SHELL 63, with bending and
membrane capabilities and modeled using two parameters, the modulus of elasticity E
=2065000 and poisson’s ratio ν= 0.2.

.
Fig.1 Foundation on geogrid reinforced soil

Ground Motions considered

The effect of dynamic soil structure interaction of reinforced and non reinforced soft soil on
the building frames is studied under the modified acceleration time history that correspond to
a peak ground acceleration of 0.5 g of the earthquake ground motion of Imperial Valley
Earthquake, Station Elcentro (1940).

METHODOLOGY

Three-dimensional finite element modeling of the whole structure –foundation –soil system is
generated using the software ANSYS and shown in fig 2.

Fig2. Finite element Model of a 2x2x1 RC frame –foundation soil system with geogrids.

The seismic analysis of the building frames is carried out with transient dynamic analysis
using mode superposition method. For the mode superposition type of transient analysis,
Alpha and Beta damping are calculated from modal damping ratios, ξ i , for a particular
mode of vibration i, based on Rayleigh Damping [1], such that the critical damping is taken
as 5%.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The seismic structural response of 1x1x1 and 2x2x1 building for Elcentro motion with and
without geogrids is studied. The variation of natural period and structural response for
various parameters like roof displacements, base shear and corner column base bending
moment for soft soil with and without geogrids are tabulated in table1 and plotted in fig 3 to
fig 6, the time histories of the same are presented are fig 7 to fig 11 and comparisons are
made with those obtained from the analysis of a fixed base structure.

Variation in Natural Period

The analysis of the effect of dynamic SSI on the natural period of the system shows an
elongation of natural period by 43% for one bay structure and 26 % for a two bay structure.
The variation in the natural period due to the effect of soil stiffening is studied on the two
building models and a slight reduction in the natural period is observed as compared to non
reinforced soil

Effect of increase in number of bays

It is observed here that, natural period increases as the number of bays increases and the
percentage variation of natural period decreases with increase in number of bays for the
building models

Table1.Variation of Structural response quantities for Elcentro Earthquake

Frame Parameters Support condition % Variation

type Fixed Reinforced soil20 Soil20 Reinforced soil20 Soil20
1x1x1 i Natural Period (sec) 0.37 0.52 0.53 41.4 43.81
ii Displacement
at roof (mm) 28.24 130.604 141.88 362.478 402.42
iii BaseShear (kN) 352.48 1266.89 1376.52 259.42 290.53
iv Column moment(kNm) 146.17 512.99 552.44 250.97 277.95
2x2x1 i Natural Period (sec) 0.43 0.54 0.55 25.55 26.64
ii Displacement
at roof (mm) 42.38 185 195.34 336.53 360.92
iii BaseShear (kN) 1028.5 4728.06 4952.16 359.73 381.52
iv Column moment(kNm) 214.3 792.93 832.55 270.02 288.51
Variation in Structural Response

It is seen from the three dimensional transient analysis that the incorporation of flexibility of
soil increases the structural column moment to more than 277% and base shear to three to
four times. It is also observed that, when the soil is stiffened with geogrids, the increase in
structural response quantities is reduced by 20% to 30%. It may be interpreted that by
properly reinforcing the soil the structural response can be reduced nearer to a fixed base
condition.

0.60
Natural period(sec)

0.50
0.40
1X1X1
0.30
2X2X1
0.20
0.10
0.00
Fixed soil w ith soil w ithout
geogrid geogrid

Fig 3. Variation of Natural period for 1x1x1 and 2x2x2 building models

250.00
Displacement(mm)

200.00

150.00 1X1X1
100.00 2X2X1

50.00

0.00
Fixed soil w ith soil w ithout
geogrid geogrid

Fig 4. Variation of roof displacement for 1x1x1 and 2x2x2 building models

6000.00
Baseshear kN

5000.00
4000.00
1X1X1
3000.00
2X2X1
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
Fixed soil with soil without
geogrid geogrid

Fig 5 . Variation of Base shear for 1x1x1 and 2x2x2 building models
 Column moment(kNm)
1000.00

800.00
600.00 1X1X1
400.00 2X2X1

200.00
0.00
Fixed soil w ith soil w ithout
geogrid geogrid

Fig 6 . Variation of Column bending moment for 1x1x1 and 2x2x2 building models

Fig 7. Variation of roof displacement for 1x1x1 building model

Fig 8. Variation of roof displacement for 2x2x2 building model

 Fig 9. Variation of Base Shear for 1x1x1 building model

Fig 10. Variation of Base Shear for 2x2x2building model

Fig 11. Variation of Corner column bending moment for 1x1x1 building model

Fig 12. Variation of Corner column bending moment for 2x2x2 building models
CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that the analysis of the integrated soil- foundation - structure system reports
considerable increase in the displacement, base shear and column moment in comparison
with the fixed base assumption. Transient analysis of reinforced soil- foundation-structure
system suggests that, due to placement of geogrids on soft soil beds with appropriate number
of layers, positioning and stiffening properties, the seismic response quantities can be reduced
closer to the fixed base condition.

REFERENCES

[1] Anil, K. Chopra (2003) “ Dynamics of structures “ Theory and application to

Earthquake Engineering , Prentice hall , New delhi.
[2] Bowles, J.E. (1998).”Foundation Analysis and design”, McGraw Hills, New York.
[3] Braja M. Das (1999) “Shallow Foundations, Bearing capacity and settlement”, CRC
press, New York.
[4] IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - General
provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[5] IS 456:2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
standards, New Delhi.
[6] IS 875 : 1987 (Part I & Part II ) Code of practice for design Loads ( Other than
Earthquake ) for buildings and structures , Bureau of Indian Standards , New Delhi.
[7] John P. Wolf (1985) , “ Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction” , Prentice- Hall, Inc ,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
[8] Christopher Burke , Hoe I.ling and Huabei Liu(2004),” Seismic Response Analysis of a
Full-scale reinforced soil retaining wall”,17 th ASCE Engineering Mechanics conference,
newmark,DE.
[9] C.R.Patra , B.M.Das and C. Atalar (2005),” Bearing Capacity of embedded strip
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand” , Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol 23 , 454-462.