Soil-Structure Interaction

ECIV 724A Fall 2004

SSI Problem Definition
Earthquake Analysis
Structures supported by rigid foundations
Earthquakes=>Specified motion of base
Rigid
Base
Analysis
Tall Buildings
Acceptable
Light & Flexible
Firm Foundations
Methods focus on
modeling of structure
Displacements wrt fixed
base
Finite Element Methods
Nuclear Power Plants
Wrong Assumption
Massive & Stiff
Soft Soils

Interaction with supporting
soils becomes important
SSI Problem Definition
Machine Foundation
Parameters
Local Soil Conditions
Peak Acceleration
Frequency Content of
Motion
Proximity to Fault
Travel Path etc
Inertial Interaction
Inertial forces in structure are
transmitted to flexible soil
Kinematic Interaction
Stiffer foundation cannot conform
to the distortions of soil
TOTAL=INERTIAL + KINEMATIC
Seismic Excitation
SSI Effects
0.00E+00
2.50E-05
5.00E-05
7.50E-05
1.00E-04
1.25E-04
1.50E-04
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
e/e
v
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

i
n

f
t
.
SSI - Proposed BE-FE
SSI - Spring Dashpot
Model
Proposed BE-FE, Stiff
Soil
Fixed Base Analysis
Posin( e t)
Half Space
2b
H
SSI Effects
-1.0E-05
-5.0E-06
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time x 1.08x10
-4
(sec)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
U1 SSI - Relative
U1 Fixed Base
U2 SSI - Relative
U2 Fixed Base
P(t)
Half Space
m
m
Cross Interaction Effects
1. Moment is applied
2. Waves Propagate
3. Reach Receiver
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
Idealized Complete
Direct MultiStep
Complete Interaction Analysis
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.
High Degree of Complexity
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
Direct Methods
Evaluation of Dynamic
Response in a Single
Step
MultiStep Methods
Evaluation of Dynamic Response
in Several Steps

SUPERPOSITION

Two-Step
Kinematic+Inertia Interaction

Three-Step
Rigid Foundations
Lumped Parameter Models

Substructure
Division to Subsystems
Equilibrium & Compatibility
True Nonlinear
Solutions
Finite Element Method (FEM)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t f Ku u C u M = + +

Governing Equation
Modal Analysis
Direct Integration
Fourier Analysis - Complex Response
Solution Techniques
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
Newmarks Methods, Wilson0 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

s
Matrix Mass Mixed
5
1
Matrix Mass Consistent
8
1
Matrix Mass Lumped
8
1
max
s
s
s
h

Max Element Size Governed by Highest frequency

which must be transmitted correctly within the
element
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
( )
j j ii j ij i
u f u c u c c

= + +
,
2
2 ,
2
2
2
1
Governing Equation

Small Displacement
Field
Homogeneous
Isotropic
Elastic
Boundary Element Method
GOVERNING EQUATION
BOUNDARY INTEGRAL EQUATION
Dynamic Reciprocal
Theorem
Indirect DIRECT
Transform Domain TIME DOMAIN
Dirac-o 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
= =

+
=
+
1
1
2
N
n
n N n N
f B u
N N
H Ff +
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
( )
j j ii j ij i
u f u c u c c

= + +
,
2
2 ,
2
2
2
1
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) t t
t t
f Ku
u C u M
=
+ +

FEM Method
Time Marching Scheme
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t f Ku u C u M = + +

N
N
f Du =
Governing Equation
Discrete Form in Time
FEM-BEM Coupling
Staggered Solutions
Can be Solved in a Staggered Approach...
N N
BEM
N
BEM
H Ff u + =
N
FEM
N
FEM
f Du =
BEM
FEM
FEM-BEM Coupling
Staggered Solutions
Compatibility of Displacements
at Interface
BEM
Solver
FEM
Solver
Equilibrium of Forces
at Interface
External
Excitation
External
Excitation
int
FEM
u
int
BEM
u
int
FEM
f
int
BEM
f
At Every Time Step...
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
Half Space
P(t) m
Spring-Dashpot Model Stick Model
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models
Reissner (1936) Analytic Solutions to Vertical
Vibration of Circular Footing Due to Harmonic
Excitation
Assumptions:
Elastic -space
Material G,v,
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
Mode K C B D

Vertical
(z)


( ) v 1
4
o
Gr


G r
o

v
2
1
4 . 3

3
4
1
o
r
m

v


z
B
425 . 0


Sliding
(x)


( ) v 2
8
o
Gr


G r
o

v
2
2
6 . 4

3
8
2
o
r
m

v


x
B
288 . 0


Rocking
()


( ) v 1 3
8
3
o
Gr


( )( )

v

B
G r
o
1 1
8 . 0
4


( )
5
8
1 3
o
r
I

( )

B B + 1
15 . 0


Torsional
(u)


3
6
3
o
Gr


( )
u
u
B
G B
2 1
4
+


5
o
r
I

u


( )
u
B 2 1
5 . 0
+


Representative Lumped Parameter Values Circular
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models
Stehmeyer and Rizos (2003)
Properties k, and c are known to be frequency (e) dependent
The Real System Equivalent SDOF System
n
n
m c
M K
e
e
2 =
=
Lumped Parameter Foundation Models
Horizontal Displacement with Horizontal Impulse Applied
-0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
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
Time
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Discrete BEM Solution
Simplified Closed Form Solution
2b
B(t)
Half Space
y
z
x
B
(
t
)
e
n
= 3.3
= 0.975
SSI Effects
0.00E+00
2.50E-05
5.00E-05
7.50E-05
1.00E-04
1.25E-04
1.50E-04
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
e/e
v
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

i
n

f
t
.
SSI - Proposed BE-FE
SSI - Spring Dashpot
Model
Proposed BE-FE, Stiff
Soil
Fixed Base Analysis
Posin( e t)
Half Space
2b
H
SSI Effects
-1.0E-05
-5.0E-06
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time x 1.08x10
-4
(sec)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
U1 SSI - Relative
U1 Fixed Base
U2 SSI - Relative
U2 Fixed Base
P(t)
Half Space
m
m
SSI Effects
Based on the Simplified Lumped Parameter
Models it can be shown that
u
k
k
k
k
T
T
h
h
2
1
~
+ + =
P(t) m
Longer Period of Foundation-Structure System
SSI Effects Cross Interaction
Receiver Foundation
Source Foundation
SSI Effects Cross Interaction
0.0E+00
5.0E-11
1.0E-10
1.5E-10
2.0E-10
2.5E-10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Dimensionless Frequency a
o
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
A
1
Source M=10
Receiver M=10
Source M=5
Receiver M=5
Source M=1
Receiver M=1
Receiver Foundation Receiver Foundation
Source Foundation Source Foundation
Receiver Foundation Receiver Foundation
Source Foundation Source Foundation
SSI Effects Cross Interaction
0.0E+00
5.0E-11
1.0E-10
1.5E-10
2.0E-10
2.5E-10
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
Dimensionless Frequency a
o
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
d/a=0.25
Source Foundation
d/a=1.00
d/a=2.00
d/a=3.00
d/a=0.25
Receiver Foundation
d/a=1.00
d/a=2.00
d/a=3.00
Receiver Foundation Receiver Foundation
Source Foundation Source Foundation
Receiver Foundation Receiver Foundation
Source Foundation Source Foundation
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.